JRTN’s Leader Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri Announces Continuation of Sunni Resistance Against the Iraqi Government
Beginning with what has to be one of the most awkwardly-filmed intros ever (Seriously, no one could get a better shot?), ‘Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri released an hour-long speech on his 65th birthday in which he calls for a renewal of the Sunni resistance against the Iraqi government and the eventual overthrow of the Iraqi Regime. Check it out for yourself or read the Arabic or English articles below that were published about the speech.
From Al Sumariya:
اكد الأمين العام لحزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي نائب رئيس مجلس قيادة الثورة المنحل عزة الدوري، السبت، في اول دليل مرئي على بقائه على قيد الحياة منذ العام 2003، أن البعث اليوم في العراق “يفجر الثورة التي ارادتها الامة ويؤججها”، ودعا “المقاومة والمعارضة” إلى مواجهة “المشروع الفارسي في البلاد”، فيما مجد بمبادئ حزب البعث ورسالته مشددا على انه “النموذج والمثل والقيادة”.
وقال الدوري في تسجيل تلفزيوني نشر على عدد مواقع الانترنيت إن “بعثنا في عيد الخامس والستين (…) خاصة في عراق العروبة والاسلام (…)كان وما يزال وسيبقى إلى الأبد يمثل روح الشعب العظيم وروح والامة المجيدة والنموذج والمثل والريادة والقيادة (…)”.
وأضاف الدوري متوجها إلى “جماهير الأمة” وقال “بعثنا اليوم يقود في العراق ما ارادته الامة (…) ويفجر ثورتها الكبرى ويؤجهها ويحمل مبادئها الاساسية”، واعتبر البعث في العراق حاليا في “منازلة تاريخية كبرى”.
واكد الدوري “البعث ما زال ثائرا ومناضلا”، وهدد بـ”مواصلة المقاومة لتغيير النظام السياسي”، واعتبر أن الحكومة الحالية “حولت العراق إلى لقمة سائغة بيد الصفويين (…)”، وأضاف “حتى باتت المواجهة معهم وجها لوجه (…)”.
وحذر الدوري من انه “إذا سقط العراق بيد الصفويين فإن لا اميركا ولا غيرها قادر على الوقوف بوجد المد الصفوي (…) وسيجتاح الأمة العربية من أقصاها إلى اقصاها” ودعا “المقاومة والمعارضة في العراق إلى العمل المشترك من اجل مواجهة المشروع الفارسي في العراق”.
A video posted online Saturday purports to show Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the highest ranking member of Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime still at large, lashing out against Iraq’s Shiite-led government.
The man in the video, posted on a website linked to Saddam’s now-outlawed Baath party, was introduced as al-Douri and bore a striking physical resemblance to the former Saddam deputy. He noted that nine years had passed since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, suggesting the video was made recently.
Wearing an olive military uniform and eyeglasses, he criticized Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and what he said was meddling by neighboring Shiite powerhouse Iran.
“Everyone can hear the sounds of danger echoing daily and threatening this country,” he said during the hour-long address, adding that al-Maliki’s Dawa Party “has announced Iraq as the Shiite capital, and called on all Arab leaders to surrender to this reality.”
Al-Douri has been reported dead or captured more than once in the past. He has not been seen in public since the U.S.-led invasion, though audio tapes purporting to be from him have been released. His whereabouts are not known.
Al-Douri is believed to have played a key role in financing Sunni insurgents seeking to undermine Iraq’s post-Saddam government. He was the “king of clubs” in the deck of playing cards issued by the U.S. to help troops identify the most-wanted members of Saddam’s regime.
Ali al-Moussawi, a media adviser for al-Maliki, said the tape is meant to “boost the morale of the terrorists.”
“Al-Douri wants to spread terrorism and sectarian violence under the pretext of resistance,” he said. “This will not affect the work of the government or the political process.”
Terror in Translation: JRTN Denies Arrest of its Members by Iraqi Security Forces
In the interest of providing translations for fairly unique and interesting Arabic language material, and to stave off boredom from reading generic news articles on al-Jazeera, BBC Arabic…etc., I’ve decided to start a semi-regular feature called “Terror in Translation.” It’s amazing the sort of open-source material that is out there on the internet, just waiting for someone to come along and analyze it. Initially it will focus on the materials posted on the website of the Iraqi insurgent group “Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqa al-Naqshbandiya(جيش رجال الطريقة النقشبندية)”, or JRTN for short. Comprised of many former Ba’athists and Sunni Nationalists, they have proven to be a surprisingly resilient group and have avoided making many of the costly mistakes that doomed AQI/ISI’s efforts to foment a long-lasting insurgency. For more on this group, check out Micheal Knight’s excellent work on their history and involvement in the Iraqi insurgency. As with all of my translations, I’m most definitely a work in progress, so if you see something that could be translated better, let me know!
This is an admittedly dated article, but it is the last official communique posted on their website. It was posted in response to news reports in mid-December 2011 indicating that JRTN’s alleged Baghdad commander (“Wali of Baghdad”) was arrested along with 40 of his associates. For an Arabic article about the arrests, check out this piece from the Mawtani news agency.
“The Official Spokesperson for the Army of the Men of the Naqshabandi Order Denies News Regarding the Arrest of Some of the Army’s Fighters in Baghdad.”
Link to story on JRTN Site
Link to .gif of the Press Release
Link to .pdf of the Press Release//Upper Left Image
The High Command for Jihad and Liberation
(Victory comes from Allah and Conquest is at hand)
Army of the Men of the Naqshabandi Order//Header
In the name of God the Merciful
(They wish to extinguish the light of God with their words, but Allah’s light never dies, not even to the hate of the unbelievers.)//Main Body
Praise be to the God of Heaven and Earth and prayer and peace be upon our father Muhammad as well as upon his family, companions, and followers; may they follow him in truth until the Day of Judgement. Therefore:The occupiers have been defeated; their tail droops with disappointment and they suffer in shame as a result of the strikes by our heroic Mujahidin. In a desperate attempt to cover up their failures in Iraq as well as their defeat – a defeat which we’ve announced to the whole world – they have spread news to their lackeys as well as some of the media outlets under their control saying that the (Iraqi) National Police in Baghdad arrested a person who they call the, “Wali (Governor) of Baghdad for the Naqshabandi Organization,” along with 40 of his associates. The media outlets reported that those members confessed to carrying out assassinations with suppressed weapons and “sticky IEDs”. In respect to this dark lie, we set forth the following:
1. None of the Mujahidin from our group were arrested at all in Baghdad over the past few days. They are still there (in Baghdad), their numbers are increasing, and they are surrounded by those who care about our people. They continue to carry out their bold operations in order to crush those that remain of the infidel occupiers and their Safavid minions.(1) This alleged “news” is, at its root, nothing but the fabrications of the Safavid government’s criminals. Or, perhaps they arrested innocent people and, as usual, tortured them into confessing to the lies and fabrications that the puppet government wants to put upon our proud people.
2. All of our people know that the assassination operations carried out with suppressed weapons and sticky IEDs are undertaken by the Safavid government along with its militias and are done so with support from Iran. In contrast, everyone knows that our Army in no way targets our people, because our fight is with the occupiers, and not the people. This fabrication is the result of a desperate and deplorable attempt by the government to squelch this fact.
3. It appears that the process undertaken by the lying government agents to fabricate this story was rushed, which led them to use terminology which is not related to our Army. For example, their use of the term “Wali of Baghdad” is an obvious blunder and is proof that this news was fabricated.(2) Our Army is a jihadist army that takes its fight to the occupation and its minions; we have no governors or ministers or anyone with that sort of administrative title in any of the provinces or cities. Rather, we have only our Mujahidin in our areas of operation who direct the battle for liberation against the occupier and its lackeys.
At the same time that we affirm the falsehood of this news, we see that these days the puppet government is circulating similar allegations in order to divert attention away from the issue of the supposed American withdrawal towards a belief that the government controls the situation in Iraq. However, that its (control) is only over the media studios goes to show that its power over events on the ground is a mirage. The day will come when we will reprise for those who care about our great people, and those that stretched out their arms to them under any name whatsoever will be overthrown. (Those that oppress will be overthrown.)
//This last sentence is kind of confusing.Finally, these lies don’t deceive our patient people. Indeed, if they prove anything, they show the delusion of the Safavid government and expose its random blunders and confusion for all our people to see as it covers up its crimes such as killing its own people and stealing its own wealth while acting on behalf of foreign agendas. We promise to Allah and his prophet and our leadership and our people that we will move forward in the way of Jihad until the brilliant victory when the liberation of Iraq is complete. May God bless our prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. Peace be upon him.
Doctor Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi
Official Spokesperson for the Army of the Men of the Naqshabandi Order
13 December, 2011
Notes:
1. JRTN is a Sunni organization and, as such, uses the word “Safavid” aka “Persian” as a derogatory word to describe the Shi’a-led Iraqi government which JRTN sees as being overrun with Persian/Shi’a interlopers in Iraqi affairs.
2. Interestingly, he kind of has a point. JRTN is an organization with a fairly traditional military hierarchy. There is a central command with various operational sectors, brigades, battalions, squads…etc. The use of the term “Wali” or “Governor” to describe the leader of an area is normally associated with AQI/ISI’s attempts to set up a “shadow” government in various provinces with their own cabinet of ministers and mayors.
Juicy Vocabs:
اذناب – minions, lackeys
صفوي – Savafid (Persian)
الحكومة العميلة – puppet government
فبركة – fabrication
مفبروك – fabricated
روج – to circulate
رواج – circulation
مزاعم – allegations
خيرات – wealth, bounty
اجندة/ات – agenda(s)
على الاطلاق – at all
محاولة يائسة بائسة – a desperate and deplorable attempt
طمس – to suppress/squelch
Unconventional Arabic Language Resources, Vol. 1
1950s DLI students sit riveted by another mind-blowing Arabic lesson.
In the military, within the language analyst community (government speak for ‘translator’), there is a phrase that sends shivers down the spines of most service-members. The phrase is… “language maintenance.” It makes the language retention process sound as interesting and thrilling as changing a car’s oil, which is probably why most military “language maintenance” materials are so damned boring. From my experience, most materials consisted of either a written article from Al Jazeera or BBC Arabic, or a 2-3 minute audio passage from the same sources. Bilateral trade agreements! Weather reports! The Joy! Now, these sorts of materials are certainly important – especially since the DLPT draws almost exclusively from them – but they can become stale very quickly, especially at the higher levels. It’s also understandable that since the personnel tasked with putting together materials for language maintenance are swamped with a million other tasks, they naturally reach for the same resources time and again. In that regards, I thought I’d list a few places where you can find Arabic Language materials that are both authentic and engaging.
Disclaimer: I like Arabic, but I love Iraq and Iraqi Arabic. As such, you’ll probably notice a certain bias towards materials related to Iraq. You just got to deal with it, yo. Also, most of these materials are probably in the 2+ and higher range of the ILR scale. If you aren’t there yet, you might not get as much out of these.
1. The Harmony Program Documents from West Point’s Countering Terrorism Center
These documents are probably some of the most unique documents of their kind on the internet. Documents captured from insurgents and terrorists across Iraq and Afghanistan were made available by the US Military to researchers at West Point’s CTC under the agreement that they were allowed to be publicly published. It doesn’t get more “real” than this. Want to read the letter that al-Qa’ida’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, sent to the former leader of al-Qa’ida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? What about the form that al-Qa’ida required its soldiers to fill out if they were quitting jihad in Iraq? There are tons of different documents that you can pore over; all of them interesting and historical. The best part of all, however, is that every single Arabic Language document has an English translation accessible by clicking the “View English Translation” button in the upper right corner of the page. It not only provides a word-for-word translation, but adds context and background history on the who/what/where/when/why of each document. You almost don’t need your trusty Hans Wehr!
2. Baghdad TED Talks
Yeah, you read that right. Official TED talks… in Arabic… from Baghdad. This is actually very, very recent (last week). The footage isn’t actually up on the official site just yet, but you can still watch a replay of the livestream here.
3. Iraqiyah Confessions
These are pretty wild; there isn’t really any correlation to this practice on mainstream American TV. Basically, some of the most “infamous” of Iraqi terrorists and insurgents that are rounded up by US/Iraqi Forces are brought on TV for dramatic one-on-one mea culpas where they detail their sordid jihadi ways. One of the lengthiest interviews is one done with Munaf al-Rawi, the so-called “Wali of Baghdad,” who led al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s Baghdad operations and who was captured back in 2010 and sentenced to death this March. The entire interview can be found conveniently pieced together on my youtube playlist. There’s plenty more out there. I should note, some people might find it repulsive to dedicate 30-40 minutes listening to a terrorist talk, but I think most people will see the value. Maybe I’ll post a transcript some day for the non-Arab speaking folks out there?
4. al-Jazeera Sports
I have a theory that sometimes the best thing to do on certain days is just put on some Arabic in the background and let your mind absorb and work with the Arabic passively. Don’t worry about looking up words, don’t mess with trying to understand everything, just get in that messy stream of Arabic and let it wash over you like a warm shower. That’s right. And, in my opinion, the best way to do that is to put al-Jazeera Sports on. They generally have soccer (football lol) on at some point during the day and it’s super easy to just pull it up and watch some soccer for 30 minutes. This method is even more beneficial if you follow American sports, as a lot of the chatter between broadcasters is the same so it is fairly easy to figure out what they are chatting about after a while. al-Jazeera Sports streams live from this website. Enjoy!
Love My Fear More Than My Money
Shocker! Guantanamo Bay is a complete waste of money. The Miami Herald‘s Carol Rosenberg – uber guru on all things Gitmo – has a new article up that estimates that the facility costs the US Government $800,000 annually, per detainee. That comes out to roughly thirty times the cost of holding a prisoner on US soil. Mother Jones adds on an interesting factoid:
The irony is that with only 171 detainees left, there are more convicted international terrorists in federal prisons in the United States than there are detainees remaining at Gitmo.
Our inability – here, in 2011 – to close the prison at Guantanamo is the most damning indictment of the cowardice and ignorant fear that lies at the heart of American politics. I could ramble on all day in regards to the shame of that place, but instead I thought I’d provide a solid list of material that has helped shaped my mind on it.
Web Sites:
Guantanamo Bay Section, Miami Herald. By Carol Rosenberg.
Carol Rosenberg won the Robert F. Kennedy award for Journalism (Domestic Print) in 2011 for her body of reporting from Guantanamo. By all accounts she has spent more time down at Gitmo than any other reporter; indeed, she has probably spent more time there than most military personnel. If you want one news source on Gitmo, this is all you need.
Audio:
Habeas Schmabeas, This American Life. by WBEZ Chicago
Ira Glass and his merry band of radio wunderkinds produced this episode, which actually won them the 2006 Peabody Award for “clarifying and emphasizing the significance of a fundamental American legal right and for giving voice to victims of its abuse.” (Peabody Award citation.) It’s worth your time.
Books:
The Least Worst Place, by Karen Greenberg
The best book to start with. Karen Greenberg goes through the very first 100 days that Gitmo was open in meticulous detail. The narrative focuses on Marine General Michael Lehnert who fought tirelessly, and ultimately in vain, for the Geneva Conventions to be upheld at the camp. It’s worth it alone as a case study in the costs and difficulty inherent in living out true moral courage and leadership.
The Eight O’clock Ferry To the Windward Side, by Clive Stafford Smith
Clive Stafford Smith was one of the first lawyers to arrive at Gitmo, and this book is a cataloging of much of his time spent at the camp and with the detainees he represented. Well written, engaging, insightful.
Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo, by Mernat Kurnaz
It doesn’t get any more personal than this: the author, Mernat Kurnaz, was wrongfully imprisoned at Gitmo for five years. This is his story.
Enemy Aliens: Double Standards And Constitutional Freedoms In The War On Terrorism, by David Cole
This book does not focus solely on Gitmo, but places it in the context of the War on Terrorism and the legal framework (or lack thereof) for much of what was happening. An excellent read.
Should I Stay Or Should I Go
The fact that we are now officially set to fully exit Iraq come December 31st of this year is old hat by now, however, I thought I’d highlight some of the best articles I’ve read in regards to that issue. Douglas Ollivant’s essay in Foreign Policy is probably the best argument for sticking to our commitment under the SOFA. Additionally, President Obama has been slammed pretty hard by those on the right who disagree with the decision, and former Army Officer Andrew Exum provides the most effective pushback against their lack of respect for Iraqi sovereignty and the (silly) accusation that Obama is letting Iran “win” the war. Take it away, Andrew:
1. Iran did win the Iraq War — but in March of 2003, not November of 2011. If we were trying to contain Iran, knocking off that regime’s mortal enemy in 2003 probably wasn’t the hottest idea. A democratic, Shia-majority Iraq was always going to be friendlier with the regime in Tehran than a Sunni Arab-minority regime. You can still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 for any number of reasons, humanitarian or strategic, but you cannot then also complain years later about how Iran is empowered. Of course Iran is empowered. That was an obvious, easily-predictable risk we ran from the beginning.
2. Iraq is a sovereign nation, right? By our design, right? Well, if you are going to bust the Obama Administration’s chops for not staying in Iraq, you then have to explain to me how we were supposed to stay in Iraq over the objections of the Iraqis themselves. My stance on staying in Iraq has always been that it was worth discussing — so long as Iraq’s leaders were willing to explain our continued presence in Iraq, in Arabic, to their constituents on live television. Anything else would be perceived as a continued occupation, exposing remaining U.S. troops to continued violent attacks. My college buddy Yochi Dreazen, who served as the Wall Street Journal’s bureau chief in Iraq for two years at the height of the war, returned recently and discovered a massive disconnect between the debate in Baghdad over U.S. troops in Iraq and the debate in Washington over U.S. troops in Iraq. While we Americans were arguing over whether or not we should stay, the Iraqi voice was clear: they wanted us to go. I want to hear the administration’s critics respond to the united opinion of Iraq’s elected leaders and populace: are we to keep military forces in Iraq over the objection of the Iraqis themselves? If so, how is this not a new occupation? And does this Iraqi sovereignty we fought so hard for now not matter because of the threat posed by Iran? Because the one thing that drives me nuts about these criticisms of the Obama Administration is that they never allow space to discuss Iraqi sovereignty — which matters in 2011 in a way that it did not in 2006.
Ironically, for those on the right who also get all hot and bothered at the thought of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, getting us out of Iraq actually makes an Israeli strike against such targets more feasible. One of the biggest constraints on an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is that the most efficient air route from Isreal to Iran is straight through Iraqi airspace which is, at this time, filled with hundreds of American military aircraft. As such, any strike that breached Iraqi airspace would either require America to repel the Israeli strike or allow it to proceed unencumbered to Iran. The former is unlikely (Can you imagine American fighter jets in a dogfight with Israeli jets?), but the latter is hardly a desired outcome as long as we are in Iraq. America’s inaction in stopping such a strike would be tacit approval of it, making us complicit and opening us up to whatever retaliation Iran has in store. Hell, even if Israel managed to cobble together some sort of flight path that avoided making us partners in their attack, our continued presence in Iraq would still be an easy, logical target for Iranian retribution. Iran makes many empty boasts, but their ability and willingness to kill and maim American troops in Iraq is not one of them.
However, all of that changes once we leave. Tom Ricks noted as such this morning:
With the U.S. military out of Iraq in about six weeks, there is a new opportunity for a direct flight straight across Iraq. “We have no authorities or arrangements to defend the [Iraqi] skies,” a U.S. Air Force general helpfully notes. The Iraqi military isn’t capable of stopping an Israeli air flotilla or maybe even detecting it, if done right. Israel even could put up some refuelers over the western desert, with some fighters protecting them. And maybe even take over an airstrip out there to use for emergency landings, or combat search and rescue. If you find this argument persuasive, then New Year’s Eve may be the time to do it. I mean, who is going to stop them? Syria has its own problems, and Saudi Arabia probably would be happy to help.
That’s not to say I think such a strike is a great idea. Iran’s BFFs in Lebanon, Hezbollah, would launch some sort of attack on Israel, and Iran would most likely attempt to cut off oil exports in the Gulf which would then turn into a global crisis. However, if you are a neoconservative who has nightmares of evil Persians dancing around nuclear weapons, it’s actually in your benefit to just let the Iraq War go at this point.
Just let it go, man.
Black Flags Everywhere
You might have missed it, but a certain brouhaha has erupted over sightings of black flags in Libya that resemble the flag flown by al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) and its political “wing”, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). Originally reported in Vice last week, it has struck a nerve with many people who are understandably shocked or confused at why a flag flown by AQI is suddenly popping up in Libya. The reality behind the flag, however, is a bit more convoluted. Adam Serwer from Mother Jones provides a decent fleshing out of the story, but the most thorough examination by far comes from Aaron Zelin, a regular contributor to the lovingly curated Middle East CT clearinghouse blog, “al-Wasat.” In two seperate posts, Aaron broke down the history of the flag and provided a great analysis of the possibility of growing al-Qa’ida influence in post-war Libya. Something that was brought up before the “war” in Libya was the fact that almost 1/5 of the Foreign Fighters streaming into Iraq during the peak of the fighting in 2007 were from eastern Libya, as is detailed in the CTC’s report based on documents captured in Sinjar, along the Iraqi-Syrian border. Most of the fighters were from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and it is not hard to imagine that those who returned from Iraq alive might feel the urge to flex their muscles during such uncertain times. As such, it could just be a couple of punks trying to troll their elders, or it could hint at deeper problems lying beneath the surface.
Link Dump, 8 November
Ola! Ahlan wa Sahlan! I’m hoping to (yet again) start posting on this here blog. I’m going to shoot for 1-2 posts a day, 3-4 days a week. I hope you’ll stick around for the ride. 
Good Reads In No Particular Order:
Countering Terrorism Center’s October 2011 Sentinal [PDF]
Countering Terrorism Center’s Report: “A False Foundation? AQAP, Tribes, and ungoverned spaces in Yemen.”[PDF]
Enjoy!
What in the hell are we doing in Libya?
A rebel emptied the pockets of a dead African soldier who had been fighting with Qaddafi's forces. - Patrick Baz/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Have we learned nothing? Eight years to the day (March 19, 2003) that we launched the failed Iraq War, we find ourselves drawn into yet another war in a Middle Eastern country with absolutely no idea of what we are getting ourselves into. Let’s look at our rock-solid preparation:
-No congressional declaration of war.
-No stated exit strategy.
-No discussion of how much this will cost. (Haha, and I thought people cared about the deficit!)
-No honest discussion of whether we can achieve our stated objectives (of course, if you have vague objectives, you can always bullshit this one. See: Iraq War, Afghan War, Vietnam War…etc. Or, you can just blindly trust that America can do no wrong. It works out great in Middle Eastern wars!)
I rounded up some of the best commentary I’ve seen on the Libyan war so far:
Launching air strikes is the easiest, most exciting, and most dependably successful stage of a modern war, from the US / Western perspective. TV coverage is wall-to-wall and awestruck. The tech advantages are all on our side. Few Americans, or none at all, are hurt. It takes a while to see who is hurt on the ground.
But after this spectacular first stage of air war, what happens then? If the airstrikes persuade Qaddafi and his forces just to quit, great! But what if they don’t? What happens when a bomb lands in the “wrong” place? As one inevitably will. When Arab League supporters of the effort see emerging “flaws” and “abuses” in its execution? As they will. When the fighting goes on and the casualties mount up and a commitment meant to be “days, not weeks” cannot “decently” be abandoned, after mere days, with so many lives newly at stake? When the French, the Brits, and other allies reach the end of their military resources — or their domestic support — and more of the work naturally shifts to the country with more weapons than the rest of the world combined?
The United States Navy destroyer Barry fired Tomahawk missiles from the Mediterranean Sea on Saturday. The Pentagon said more than 100 missiles were targeted at Libya's air-defense systems. - Fireman Roderick Eubanks/U.S. Navy
Josh Marshall – TPM:
It looks more like once we’ve closed down Qaddafi’s air forces we’ve basically taken custody of what is already a failed rebellion. We’ve accepted responsibility for protecting them. Once we recognize that, the logic of the situation will lead us to arming our new charges, helping them get out of the jam they’re in.
So let’s review: No clear national or even humanitarian interest for military intervention. Intervening well past the point where our intervention can have a decisive effect. And finally, intervening under circumstances in which the reviled autocrat seems to hold the strategic initiative against us. This all strikes me as a very bad footing to go in on.
And this doesn’t even get us to this being the third concurrent war in a Muslim nation and the second in an Arab one. Or the fact that the controversial baggage from those two wars we carry into this one, taking ownership of it, introducing a layer of ‘The West versus lands of Islam’ drama to this basically domestic situation and giving Qaddafi himself or perhaps one of his sons the ability to actually start mobilization some public or international opinion against us.
Andrew Sullivan – The Atlantic:
The regime is shooting unarmed civilians at will – killing scores. We must surely stop this. Oh, wait. It’s Yemen, and we support the regime. Meanwhile, the Bahrainian autocracy, backed by the Saudi theocracy, “cleanses” its capital city of the symbols of democratic hope, with the assistance of foreign troops. But we are somehow able to resist the impulse to intervene – and maintain diplomatic relations with the royal family there.
The trouble with intervening somewhere is that it begs the question of: why not somewhere else? If the motive is entirely humanitarian, and involves no “vital national interest”, then how can it be compatible with allowing, say, the Iranian dictatorship to kill, shoot dead, torture and disappear countless Iranians who peacefully sought real change?
Yes, the Obama administration has now interjected American power into what was a few days ago a revolution entirely for the Arab world to resolve itself. My fear is that this decision was made without a thorough public airing of all the unanswered questions about unintended consequences. I worry that the West’s involvement will merely reignite the paradigm in which the Arab world is incapable of reforming itself without meddling from the West, and revives the danger of changing the subject from the malfeasance and incompetence of the various regimes to the broader argument about the Arab world’s relationship with the outside world. I remain of the view that, for reasons of prudence and constitutional propriety.
An injured captured soldier loyal to Col. Qaddafi is interrogated by a rebel soldier at the Jalaa hospital in Benghazi. - Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press
Glenn Greenwald – Salon:
After George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama, New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple wrote that starting new military conflicts is “a Presidential initiation rite,” that “most American leaders since World War II have felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood,” and that Bush’s order to attack tiny, defenseless Panama “has shown him as a man capable of bold action.” Just as the Founders predicted, allowing Presidents to order military attacks without the approval of the citizenry (through their Congress) has engendered a whole slew of unnecessary wars that serve the political and ruling classes but not the people of the country.
The dangers from unilateral, presidential-decreed wars are highlighted in the Libya situation. There has been very little public discussion (and even less explanation from the President) about the reasons we should do this, what the costs would be on any level, what the end goal would be, how mission creep would be avoided, whether the “Pottery Barn” rule will apply, or virtually anything else. Public opinion is at best divided on the question if not opposed. Even if you’re someone who favors this intervention, what’s the rationale for not requiring a debate and vote in Congress over whether the President should be able to commit the nation to a new military conflict? Candidate Obama, candidate Clinton, and the Bush-era Democrats all recognized the constitutional impropriety of unilateral actions like this one; why shouldn’t they be held to that?
Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that Washington did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power.
Opening up the possibility of a rift between the US and Britain and France if the Gaddafi regime does not crumble quickly, he said: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go. It’s about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people.”
Adm Mullen said it was “certainly potentially one outcome” that the mission could succeed while leaving Col Gaddafi in power.
So basically, we can blow a couple hundred million dollars launching Tomahawks and aircraft into Libya, only to leave a pissed-off, wounded Qaddafi in power. The only way we win is if the rebels are able to recover, push all the way to Tripoli, and then seize power from Qaddafi in a relatively short amount of time. Every single other outcome is a failure for American and NATO forces and a propaganda victory for Qaddafi. If Qaddafi doesn’t fall, what then? Do we maintain a no-fly zone indefinitely while waiting for the rebels to gain strength? Do we send in ground troops? Do we start targeting Qaddafi? We could always just walk away, but I doubt we as a nation have the moral courage to do that. Peggy Noonan had a great piece in the Wall Street Journal recently that was spot on:
Peggy Noonan – Wall Street Journal:
The biggest takeaway, the biggest foreign-policy fact, of the past decade is this: America has to be very careful where it goes in the world, because the minute it’s there—the minute there are boots on the ground, the minute we leave a footprint—there will spring up, immediately, 15 reasons America cannot leave. The next day there will be 30 reasons, and the day after that 45. They are often serious and legitimate reasons.
So we wind up in long, drawn-out struggles when we didn’t mean to, when it wasn’t the plan, or the hope, or the expectation.
We have to keep this phenomenon in mind as we chart our path in the future. It’s easy to start a war but hard to end one. It’s as simple as that. It’s easy to get in but hard to get out. Even today, in Baghdad, you hear that America can’t leave Iraq because the government isn’t sturdy enough, the army and police aren’t strong enough to withstand the winds that will follow America’s full departure, that all that has been achieved—a fragile, incomplete, relative peace—will be lost. America cannot leave because Iraq will be vulnerable to civil war, not between Sunnis and Shiites, they tell you now, but between Arabs and Kurds, in the north, near the oil fields.
Rebels gathered around the body of a fighter loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. - Goran Tomasevic/Reuters
Heartbreaking Attack on Two US Airmen in Germany
The New York times is reporting that two US Airmen were killed and another two injured in an attack by a lone gunman at Frankfurt International Airport in Germany.
The suspected gunman, who is in custody, is 21-year-old Kosovar who lives in Frankfurt, according to a city police spokesman, Manfred Füllhardt.
He said that he busload of airmen had just arrived from England and had boarded the bus to go to the American military base at Ramstein, a few dozen miles to the southwest of the Frankfurt Airport.
The suspect argued with some of the airmen before shooting one who was standing in the open door as well as the driver, Mr. Füllhardt said. The suspect was captured by a Hesse state police officer who was at the airport, which typically has heavy security especially following warnings in recent months that Germany would be a terror target.
Key quote at the end:
A man whose office is near the site of the shooting said it was an area where buses load arriving passengers. Speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his business, he said witnesses told him that the gunman first talked to the military personnel to find out who they were and then opened fire, shouting “God is great” in Arabic.
Definitely has the looks of a terrorist attack. RIP.
Aggressive Prudence > Unserious Warmongering
“In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.” -Jose Narosky
Andrew Sullivan posted up a great reader’s response to recent pieces by the terrifyingly inept duo of William Kristol and Leon Wieseltier. They have recently been cheering on the idea of injecting American troops into Libya while tut-tutting Obama for being a limp-wristed pansy who wastes his time researching the best answer to a thorny and complicated problem. Real American Patriots send young American troops in to die at the drop of a hat! Their recent articles are essentially the same trope they trotted out back in 2003 when each of them was so eager to quit the messy process of diplomacy and get on with the fun: War! In Iraq! Guns! Explosions! Freedom! Isn’t it all so much fun?
That’s not to say that their hearts aren’t in the right place. The situation in Libya is tragic and heartbreaking, and it certainly is worth our time to do all we can to help. But, Kristol and Wieseltier are deeply unserious men. The fact that they were beating the war drums loudly during the run up to the Iraq war is bad, but it can be forgiven. There are many people who look back on that time with a feeling of horror and shame for how easily we unthinkingly succumbed to the push towards war. We are human, we err, we find ourselves driven by powerful emotions like fear and anger that press us onwards. We were also quite misinformed by our own government about the true costs and difficulties. But in Mr. Kristol and Mr. Wieseltier you see two men who are unrepentant about their positions. They see no wrongdoing, no better way we could have steered towards. The tragedy of the Iraq experience seems to place no burden upon their hearts.
This is what makes their babbling incoherence about Libya all the more shameful. If we as America have learned anything of value from this past decade, I would hope we’ve learned that war is one of the most awful things a country can undertake. Even when done for the best of intentions, we are trafficking in an eternal evil when we unleash our armies. Of course, the cost of Iraq (and Afghanistan) was never born by the William Kristols of the world; it was born by our young servicemen and the poor Iraqis who found themselves on the wrong end of our our nation’s grand hubris. Perhaps the situation in Libya will deteriorate to the point that a no-fly zone will need to be implemented. Perhaps we might even need to go further than that? If that time comes, we would certainly be well-served to have spent our time in intense discussions with our allies and with ourselves about the true costs of such an endeavor and how to accomplish our mission without jeopardizing the nascent Libyan resistance. It’s the only serious way forward.
