Another "Pseudo-Expert Roundup" On Iraq

The Times has yet another presentation of various "experts" on Iraq, and "how to see this mission accomplished." Honestly, I've only read one of the comments, that of Danielle Pletka, because history indicates that her brand of "expertise" is usually good for a laugh.

No doubt both Al Qaeda and Iran overplayed their hands and alienated Iraqis. At the same time, the surge convinced both Sunni and Shiite rejectionists that United States forces would remain the strongest in Iraq for the time being. American leaders need to recognize, however, that power calculations, not principle, have driven these conversions.

Okay... she's stating the obvious, but there's nothing unreasonable in that.

No, we should not shun friends where we find them, even fair-weather friends.

Somebody suggested we should shun our friends? Who? Where? When? (If somebody advised caution on dealing with "fair weather friends", that's understandable and correct - is that what she means? It's certainly not what she said.)

Nor is it right, as some Democrats have suggested, that our Iraqi allies are merely mercenaries.

Must we go through this every day? Name the Democrats who have suggested "our Iraqi allies are merely mercenaries". Name just one. (Didn't think so.)

But Americans must understand that we will need to maintain an imposing presence in Iraq for a long time to come, ensuring that all sides have enough of a stake in the new order so that violence loses its appeal.

Now that's a weak excuse for a punch line, although it reflects a clownish sense of reality.

We must "maintain an imposing presence in Iraq" - how imposing?

We must be there for "a long time to come" - how long?

And what form of low-wattage thinking comes up with the fantasy that we can ensure that "all sides have enough of a stake in the new order so that violence loses its appeal"? (Oh yes... American Enterprise Institute-branded low-wattage thinking.) So, Ms. Pletka, give us one successful example of nation similar to Iraq, full of ethnic tensions and on the verge of civil war, where that was achieved. I'm cutting you a break here, by pretending Iraq isn't in a state of civil war - so it should be easy, right? Just one example, from all of human history.

You promise to get back to us with an answer, maybe, in the next round-up of the pseudo-experts?

The "Experts" Speak (Again)

More than four years ago, The Guardian asked a number of "experts" on Iraq to comment on how to improve the situation. The suggestions were pretty mediocre. The most laughable? From Danielle Pletka:

For Danielle Pletka, of the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, improved security was a matter of being tougher. The US should "stop acting as a weak power, because that is what is giving encouragement to the terrorists", she urged.

"We could stop driving around in Humvees without actually arresting anybody," she said. "We could arrest a lot of people, including all of the Ba'athists, the mukhabarat [secret police] and senior military who are floating around freely in Iraq. We could stop releasing people after we arrest them, often within 24 hours."

Closing Iraq's borders effectively, to prevent infiltration from neighbouring countries, she added, was half the battle. "We could make clear to the governments that are allowing infiltrators through that the consequences to them will be extraordinarily unpleasant if it continues."

Her suggestion for how to get us onto a path of success? One of those "It would be funny, but..." things.

What would kickstart moves to peace?

Danielle Pletka:

'Establish an understanding that there are liberal, democratic Iraqis who should be empowered with more control over the political and security wellbeing of the country'

• Chance of stability in 12 months: 50-75% as long as changes are made in tactics

The New York Times continues to anoint her as an expert:

But what about the mistaken assumptions that remain unexamined? Looking back, I felt secure in the knowledge that all who yearn for freedom, once free, would use it well. I was wrong. There is no freedom gene, no inner guide that understands the virtues of civil society, of secret ballots, of political parties. And it turns out that living under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for decades conditioned Iraqis to accept unearned leadership, to embrace sect and tribe over ideas, and to tolerate unbridled corruption.

So when we invaded, her position was, "Wave a magic wand, get freedom." Now she knows better, because with her newfound grasp of Iraqi history she has come to realize that Saddam Hussein created tribalism and sectarianism in the Middle East, and apparently that he succeeded a government that was honest, diligent, free of corruption, and democratically elected. Having been 100% wrong on the invasion, and taking the ignorant and wildly incorrect position that the U.S. wasn't arresting or detaining suspected insurgents and terrorists in 2003, Pletka continues to display near-total ignorance of the region and its history.

Some have used Iraq’s political immaturity as further proof the war was wrong, as if somehow those less politically evolved don’t merit freedoms they are ill equipped to make use of. We would be better served to understand how the free world can foster appreciation of the building blocks of civil society in order to help other victims of tyranny when it is their turn.

The "some have used" game. Yes, particularly war supporters who try to explain away their failures with Coulteresque racism directed at Arabs and Muslims.

But those voices who can tell us how nation building works, and the difficulties of occupation? Had Ms. Pletka been listening, she would have heard those voices before the invasion. Instead she plugged her ears and dreamed up a "democracy gene". And when things went wrong, advanced the line that we had a pretty good chance of success if only we would get tougher and arrest more people, and turn power over to "liberal, democratic Iraqis"... which, yes, in her mind meant Ahmed Chalabi.

Some expert. And yet, on it goes.

"We've Got Plenty of Nothing"

Is "nothing" plenty for you?

The Guardian asked "experts" from several countries for their ideas on how to improve the situation in Iraq and... "all they got was this lousy T-shirt".

(They also present what, in a strange way, pretends to be a more scientific set of suggestions. How were those "chances" estimated? And how much garbage does Dr. Bernhard May of the German Council for Foreign Relations believe is presently on the streets of Baghdad, such that its paid collection would constitute a nationally stabilizing job creation strategy? And did Danielle Pletka formulate her suggestion by using a tool similar to Dilbert's "mission statement generator"?

'Establish an understanding that there are liberal, democratic Iraqis who should be empowered with more control over the political and security wellbeing of the country'

· Chance of stability in 12 months: 50-75% as long as changes are made in tactics

I had no idea that the mere regurgitation of a string of buzzwords had such a high probability of creating instant peace "as long as changes are made in tactics".)

Comments