Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Tethered Goat Strategy

By Sidney Blumenthal, The Guardian. Posted April 10, 2006.


Amid an internal crisis of credibility on Iraq, Condoleezza Rice has washed her hands of her department.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sidney Blumenthal

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Since the Iraqi elections in January, US foreign service officers at the Baghdad embassy have been writing a steady stream of disturbing cables describing drastically worsening conditions. Violence from incipient communal civil war is rapidly rising. Last month there were eight times as many assassinations committed by Shia militias as terrorist murders by Sunni insurgents. The insurgency, according to the reports, also continues to mutate.

Meanwhile, President Bush's strategy of training Iraqi police and army to take over from coalition forces -- "when they stand up, we'll stand down" -- is perversely and portentously accelerating the strife. State department officials in the field are reporting that Shia militias use training as cover to infiltrate key positions. Thus the strategy to create institutions of order and security is fueling civil war.

Rather than being received as invaluable intelligence, the messages are discarded or, worse, considered signs of disloyalty. Rejecting the facts on the ground apparently requires blaming the messengers. So far, two top attaches at the embassy have been reassigned elsewhere for producing factual reports that are too upsetting.

The Bush administration's preferred response to increasing disintegration is to act as if it has a strategy that is succeeding. "More delusion as a solution in the absence of a solution," said a senior state department official. Under the pretence that Iraq is being pacified, the military is partially withdrawing from hostile towns in the countryside and parts of Baghdad. By reducing the number of soldiers, the administration can claim its policy is working going into the midterm elections. But the jobs the military doesn't want to perform are being sloughed off on state department "provisional reconstruction teams" (PRTs) led by foreign service officers. The rationale is that they will win Iraqi hearts-and-minds by organising civil functions.

The Pentagon has informed the state department it will not provide security for these officials and that mercenaries should be hired for protection instead. Internal state department documents listing the PRT jobs, dated March 30, reveal that the vast majority of them remain unfilled by volunteers. So the professionals are being forced to take the assignments in which "they can't do what they are being asked to do", as a senior department official told me.

Foreign service officers, as a rule, are self-abnegating in serving any administration. The state department's Intelligence and Research Bureau was correct in its scepticism before the war about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs, but was ignored. The department was correct in its assessment in its 17-volume Future of Iraq project about the immense effort required for reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now its reports from Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished. Foreign service officers are to be sent out like tethered goats to the killing fields. When these misbegotten projects inevitably fail, the department will be blamed. Passive resistance to these assignments reflects anticipation of impending disaster, including the likely murder of diplomats.

Amid this internal crisis of credibility, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has washed her hands of her department. Her management skills are minimal. Now she has left coercing people to fill the PRTs to her counsellor, Philip Zelikow, who, by doing the dirty work, is trying to keep her reputation clean.

While the state department was racked last week by collapsing morale, Rice traveled to England to visit the constituency of Jack Straw. She declared that though the Bush administration had committed "tactical errors, thousands of them" in Iraq, it is right on the strategy. Then she and Straw took a magic carpet to Baghdad to try to overthrow Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari in favour of a more pliable character.

"Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that after Vietnam we'd be doing this again?" one top state department official remarked to another last week. Inside the department, people wonder about the next "strategy" after the hearts-and-minds gambit of sending diplomats unprotected to secure victory turns into a squalid fiasco. "Helicopters on the roof?" asked an official.

Digg!

Sidney Blumenthal, author of "The Clinton Wars," writes a column for Salon and the London Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Iraq not Vietnam, but...
Posted by: nbrown on Apr 10, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article makes the suggestion that Iraq may be another Vietnam. There are multiple ways of viewing this:

1. Motivation
2. Likelihood of military victory

The US military went into Vietnam to destroy it. That's why it killed perhaps 3 million people, a genocidal figure. You don't kill 3 million people in the name of liberty. I see no evidence that Bush's plan in Iraq is simply to destroy it. Thus, the motivation is different.

But as far as a "military victory" is concerned, surely there is none in Iraq. When a majority of Iraqis support attacks against coalition soldiers, one can only conclude that the properly defined "enemy" would be the Iraqi people themselves. And there is no way the US military can conquer the Iraqi people in a guerilla war.

Have a look at my Iraq War Timeline. One can see the war getting more and more desperate over time, as if deterioration is the only constant.

There can be no "military victory" in Iraq, even if mass violence would somehow produce something meaningful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iraq not Vietnam, but... Posted by: douglashoyt
Iraq is Vietnam, and Bush's goal was to destroy the country
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 10, 2006 1:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on - Bush has tight ties to all the major oil companies as well as to US-British financial centers. You think these people aren't overjoyed about high oil prices? They love high oil prices! More money for them, more control for them, more power for them.

Many people say it was all getting our hands on the oil, but the fact of the matter is that that was secondary - one might just as well say it was all about Iraq's water supply, the most bountiful in the Middle East (the Tigris and Euphrates, remember?). It was all about control - and if they couldn't control the country, they intended to destroy it - bomb it back to the Stone Age, as they said in Vietnam.

These people behind the Project for a New American Century are empire dreamers - the Bushevek Imperialists of the 21st century.

What is the evidence for this? The deliberate lack of intervention by the US military when Shias and Sunnis do fight is a good sign that they are using the divide and conquer strategy to destroy the country; Sunnis and Shias have lived together peaceably under most situations, just as Catholics and Protestants coexist in the United States. Sunni-Shia marriages are just as common as Catholic-Protestant marriages.

Another hint about Bush goals is the total ripoff of the reconstruction program by companies like Halliburton and Bechtel, when Iraqi engineers have all the skills needed to rebuild the country - they largely rebuilt it after the first Gulf War, which is why it needed to be bombed back into smithereens - and they managed to do it under the burden of economic sanctions. What happened to the billions in 'reconstruction money'? It went right into Bechtel and Halliburton's coffers - where it was intended to go.

For more on this topic, read Another Guardian Article on Iraq. Iraq is Vietnam, and if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld get their way, we will have 50,000 dead Americans and several million dead Iraqis and Iranians (and Syrians?) before all this is over. They need to be stopped, and soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottom Line For "Thieves World, USA"
Posted by: oldgringo on Apr 10, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States Of America since November, 2000, has undergone such an unthinkable transformation, that the is now no real way to quantify, analyze or describe this nation as it is today, in any meaningful, rational way.
Every where one turns, there is more example of mindless, immoral and/or illegal behavior of the "powerful ruling elite" of whichever political party, most of which is concerned with the unmitigated GREED of the person or persons involved. Do not forget for a second that the creation of "corporations" was to allow these groups to be treated as individuals before the law, thus protecting the "stock holders" from fiscal liabilities incurred by the Corporation.
The "Bush Years" has seen the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of the government of this country, ALL THREE BRANCHES THEREOF, turned into an organism of GRAND THEFT never seen before in any example in the so-called "FREE WORLD"!
And all in the name of"compassionate, conservative, CHRISTIAN leadership?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Condi's style of diplomacy
Posted by: Democritus on Apr 10, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it not surprise me that Condoleezza Rice is letting others do her dirty work for her? As one of the original Vulcans, she is as hard-line as it gets, even though she talks like a school-marm and makes sure to keep her skirts clean. The State Department has now become an arm of the Pentagon. The generals all want to try out their new toys, such as nuclear bunker busters against Iran; and Condi is going to smile sweetly, talk about progress, fly hither and yon to engage in useless palaver, and finally let the generals get their way. When it all blows up in their faces, as it has in Iraq, she can just dismiss criticism with an imperious shrug--just more mistaken intelligence, but not her fault at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Condi's style of diplomacy Posted by: dcr386az
A piece of the puzzle?
Posted by: AlienSlave on Apr 10, 2006 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rather than being received as invaluable intelligence, the messages are discarded or, worse, considered signs of disloyalty. Rejecting the facts on the ground apparently requires blaming the messengers. So far, two top attaches at the embassy have been reassigned elsewhere for producing factual reports that are too upsetting.

This weekend it was explained to me by a FULL GOSPEL PENNYCOSTAL That because GW is the G-d chosen leader of this country he has the (quote) Power to speak into existence BY FAITH. For once in my life I just set there clenching the arms of the chair with my feet twined into the rungs commanding focused attention to what this person was saying. I’m not going to repeat every word here! Please honest! Cross my heart and hope all of my bagels get moldy!
The basic thought is this; as Supreme (SORRY! This is hard) As a leader (oh! Wait) OK ok!………….If someone speaks out in faith as G-d did in the Beginning things will just come into existence. The key here is to be ridged and hold onto the faith and belief that what was spoken will happen. The creation of the spoken word of course will be set upon by the dark angel and his stooges to stop the…………someone from getting it. There where countless Scriptures and examples to prove all of this. The problem seems to be that there just aren’t enough FULL GOSPEL minions in the Bush camp to pull this off. I was told one couldn’t look at supposed facts and get away from the WORDS OF FAITH TO BRING THEM INTO REALITY.

I’ve gotta go fix a chair
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The new CEO is free to ignore and get rid of the old guard. Happens in Korps everyday.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 10, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many qualified staff do you know who have had to find a new job when the new boss arrived? I see that as a steady pattern. CEOs make changes, whether they know what they are doing or not.

Is it taught in business school someplace?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

darby1936
Posted by: darby1936 on Apr 10, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The law should forbid draft dodgers starting wars. Even if they were dodging an illegal and immorial war like the present war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Apr 10, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't be too hard on the girl. She can't help it. She has an oil tanker named after her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MV Condoleezza Rice Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: MV Condoleezza Rice Posted by: Wacre
Oh, but Condi plays the piano so beautifully!
Posted by: rollo on Apr 10, 2006 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who cares if she is a lying tool of a thieving administration? She's so goshdarn talented:

www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/arts/music/09tomm.html?th&emc=th

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I got the sense from the...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Apr 10, 2006 7:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"thousands of tactical errors" remark that there’s a conscience somewhere inside Condi trying to get out. Of course she stifled it and tried her best to back off the statement the following day…but for one shining moment there was a blurt of candor from the administration.

It reminded me of one of those tv cop shows when the perp, holed up in the interrogation room under relentless questioning from the cops, finally cracks and owns up to her crime.

Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Oval Office or Rummy’s Pentagon inner sanctum when that one got back. I’d swap a month’s salary to hear what Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, et al said when that remark hit CNN (of course, they’re probably watching Fox, which if they chose to report it at all probably said that she’d been drugged by al-Qaeda).

I’ve pondered long and hard on just how it is that these people can remain so cocksure of their success against all evidence to the contrary. Then I remembered that for 13 centuries nearly everyone on this planet was convinced that the world was flat and the heavens rotated around us. Perhaps not an apt comparison, but that’s never stopped me before: Ptolemy Told Me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]