Gyroscope

A newsletter for those unmoved by spin.
No. 18, November 24, 2003

Subscribe

Change Address

Unsubscribe

Comment

Anthony Cordesman has been quoted in these pages before, but two recent reports of his are worth referring you to his work yet again. "The Current Military Situation in Iraq," and "Iraq Too Uncertain to Call" are both available at the CSIS website.

They are semi-formal "trip reports" of a recent visit to Iraq. Cordesman spent time interviewing a number of leading generals and obviously was given more access to information than the average reporter - or maybe he just was able to recognize information when he got it.

His reports paint a mixed picture of what is going on, neither the full on Vietnam quagmire that some have suggested nor the happy talk of the Administration.

He claims it is abundantly clear that the Administration, in fact, made little or no plan for the occupation of Iraq and that Army commanders were not prepared for the semi-guerrilla war situation they find. For about the ten millionth time in a row, it seems to me, an army went into combat with out proper vehicles, weapons, and training for what they encountered.

On the other hand, Cordesman shows an army not as clueless about the consequences of heavy-handed occupation as I feared they might be. Commanders are adapting, using more Iraqis, listening to Iraqis, pursuing nation building activities and getting basic services going.

It appears the Iraqi governing council, chosen and installed by us, is actually arguing for an even more harsh occupation. This, among other signs, by the way, confirms my belief that this council is more trouble then they are worth and should be replaced by a real democratically chosen local leadership as soon as possible.

As for those fighting against the troops. Cordesman reports that the majority view of the local commanders is that their opponents are mostly local and include a fair assortment of petty criminal types who are essentially mercenaries. They roll their eyes at the allegations by the politicos that all this is a part of a vast terror network run by Saddam or Osama, or Iran or whatever the enemy of the month is.

What the army wants are more translators and smaller vehicles with good armor.

And WMD? David Kay, leader of the effort to find these, is quoted (in summary) as saying that there was a missile program, no evidence of a chemical weapons program, there is confusion over the biological program, some scattered activity to produce nuclear weapons to no real effect. No evidence of any effort to transfer these weapons to terrorists.

Recently the Administration has claimed that "post World War II Germany was as dangerous as occupied Iraq." It turns out that American forces, in fact, suffered zero deaths due to any sort of combat after surrender, reports Extra! quoting mass media outlets. Nov / Dec, p. 5.

"In Baghdad's poor neighborhood, formerly Saddam city, now Adr city, clerics and militias associated with Muqtada have been helping to restore order, financed by bricks of dinars from US forces. Their methods include calling for the torching of cinemas, the beating of alcoholic drinks vendors and men who refuse to grow beards, the veiling of all women including Christians, and the killing of unveiled and "sinful" women," reports Le Monde diploatique, Oct., p. 3 quoting a New York Times report by Susan Sachs.

Four former heads of the Israel's Shin Bet security service have come out in opposition to Israel's current policy in a round table discussion with reporters. Excerpts from a transcript, as reported by Forward: "In my opinion, said Ayalon, we are marching steadily toward a place in which the State of Israel will not be a democracy and a Jewish national home. All the rest is commentary.

I agree entirely, said Gillon. And that's what brought me here. I am very worried about our future. I look at my daughters, who are still young, and it's clear to me that we are heading toward disintegration....

Peri said: Some day someone should study this sociological phenomenon. Why does everyone - heads of the service, chiefs of staff, former security people - after a long security career become a standard bearer of reconciliation with the Palestinians? Why? Because they've been there. We know the people, the landscape; we know both sides....

Our dealing with Arafat is an anachronism, said Shalom, because we don't decide who is relevant or not. In my opinion it was the mother of all errors. Just as they don't dictate to us whether Bibi comes after Sharon or Sharon after Bibi, we can't decide who has influence over there. So let's look at the political map of the Palestinians. The fact is that without Arafat nothing moves.

Yediot: What you're saying is that it doesn't bother you if Arafat is the partner.

In politics nothing bothers me if I can gain something, said Shalom.

The story was also covered by the Financial Times, Nov. 16, p. A1