In the largest call-up of U.S. diplomats since the Vietnam War, the State Department is planning to order some of its personnel to serve at the American Embassy in Iraq because of a lack of volunteers.
Those designated “prime candidates” — from 200 to 300 diplomats — will be notified Monday that they have been selected for one-year postings to fill the 40 to 50 vacancies expected next year.
[…]
They will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go to Iraq and face dismissal if they refuse, said Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service.
This strikes me as a better measure of how things are going in Iraq than much of the rosy sunshine that some pundits have been spouting of late about how the surge has cured all ills and we are on the path to glorious success.
“This strikes me as a better measure of how things are going in Iraq.” Yeah, no kiddin’. By the way, you may be interested in the Wounded Warriors Project. Its a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here’s a link:
Comment by Jeff — Saturday, October 27, 2024 @ 12:56 pm
Greetings,
The State Dept has long been a problem. The running ‘joke’ going around is something like this, “The Army and Marines are at war, State is at a Department Function while the rest of America is at the Mall.”
The PRTs have long been undermanned, the State People don’t leave the Green Zone and have an impact on the lives of people they are supposed to be there to help.
It is about time the rest of the Federal Government got into the fight.
For accurate info, check out Michal Yon and the rest of the embedded Blogsters. Even without the State Department, the Green Suiters are stepping up to the challenge and succeeding.
Regards,
Comment by Mike — Saturday, October 27, 2024 @ 10:27 pm
The U.S. spent at least $38 million to give Iraq’s government a computerized accounting system — and no one noticed when it was not working for a month, a report said Wednesday.
It was the latest in a series of reports from the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., that detailed slow progress on some projects and waste and chaos in the management of another.
Ok, there are many things one could say about this, but one that strikes me immediately is: how could they have gone for a month without noticing?
*sigh*
And here’s the shocker:
One of the tasks was to develop and implement a computerized Iraq Financial Management System, or IFMIS, to replace a Saddam-era computerized system.
The new program was undertaken only months after the invasion of Iraq “without the fundamental planning and analysis that should properly precede the whole change” of a country’s system and to ensure that it would be “based on Iraqi” ministry requirements, Bowen’s report said.
What? A program was put into place without proper planning and analysis? Imagine that.
You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of the war. Here’s a link:
The president of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq has said his people will defend themselves if Turkey attacks Kurdish rebels based in the region.
Massoud Barzani rejected accusations that his government provided cover for Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) fighters.
More interesting is the following:
BBC Baghdad correspondent Ian Pannell says that in reality any attempt to deal with the PKK will ultimately have to go through the Kurdish Regional Government rather than Baghdad, but that would be a step too far for Ankara.
Any direct talks with the northern government would amount to a tacit acceptance that the Kurds in Iraq have precisely the kind of autonomy that the PKK is fighting for in Turkey, our correspondent says.
That is a grand irony of the Turkish move, should it develop as described above, as it will actually has the potential to demonstrate the inability of Baghdad to control Kurdish Iraq and may also give the Iraqi Kurds a sense of that independence (beyond what they already have).
Turkey’s parliament has given permission for the government to launch military operations into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels.
The vote was taken in defiance of pressure from the US and Iraq, which have called on Turkey for restraint.
And the question now is far will the brinksmanship go: to the edge, or over?
And for ironic statement of the day:
However Syrian President Bashar Assad, visiting Turkey, said he supported the country’s right to take the action “against terrorism and terrorist activities”.
What it seems like a “bluff” from Turkish side might be a real deal this time, because I have never seen such frustration and anger among ordinary people. PKK issue has always been handled by military hardliners up to today behind closed doors, but not anymore. What I heard from my family is that people saying “lets go there and get the job done, well we may lose say 1000 soldiers in a month while crushing PKK, but at least it is better than losing 13 soldiers and civilians once in a week”. Only misleading notion here is that it would take more than a month and more than 1000 soldiers: PKK has been training for guerilla warfare almost 20 years now. Four issues strike me as very ironic in last two weeks. One, the Armenian genocide debate. It appears to me that some smart politicians are undermining national security of the US for short term electoral gains. It is such a tragedy on the part of US. Given the tremendous impact of lobbies in politics, the system here in US needs serious reconsideration. It is true that Lobbies are effective almost everywhere, but in other places when there is a conflict between one’s national security and other’s seat in Senate, the latter goes out of window. This has nothing to with me being Turkish; I am just saying 27 smart a. shouldn’t be able to put soldiers’ life and the outcome of the war in danger all of a sudden. I watched Tom Lantos talking the other day and he said “ military bases in Turkey is as important for us as it is important for the Turks, so I don’t expect them to shut it down” Well, I think, this is where most of the US foreign policy fails. Tom Lantos’ assumption is pretty much based on idea of Rational Choice, as in Turks do the math, cost-benefit, and do not shut it down. What if Turks do act emotionally? (Which we do all the time trust me !) Second, I was surprised hearing President Bush talking to Turkey for not intervening militarily. In global scale, the current administration is the last one to talk against military intervention, specially while issue under consideration for Northern Iraq is pre-emptive strike. Plus, within Turkey, the US has no leverage whatsoever. Everyday it is on the news: “How US made weapons given to the police force in Northern Iraq ended it the hands of PKK”. Even General Ralston, the special envoy for countering PKK, quitted his job, so did his counterpart from Turkey. Third, I found Syrian President’s visit to be very interesting. In 90s, when Turkish military launched two big operations in Northern Iraq, PKK withdrawn into Iran and Syria taking the advantage of mountains, so Turkey turned back without any positive results. It says on the news that Syrian visit has something to do with Israel air strike three weeks ago. I personally don’t buy into that argument, given both Israelis and Syrians were unusually silent over that issue, why bother now. Lastly,
I think, much of the tension between Turkey and US today has something to do Northern Iraq and Iran’s resources, namely natural gas and oil. The US wants to oil in Northern Iraq, so won’t do anything against PKK. Turkey doesn’t care Iran’s nuclear program or extremism, given its desperation for natural gas and oil. Last week, Turkish representatives tired every single bank, international organization to find financial resources to build a consortium between Iran and Turkey. They got none, nothing, zip.
Put everything aside for a second and try to imagine the enjoyment on Russian side. They have gained everything in last decade that they couldn’t during the Cold War, and without firing a bullet! No more NATO, no allies, Marxist PKK still there, US has no leverage around anywhere closer to Russia, no one talks about Chechnya, etc. Politics as usual, I guess: who gets what, when, how, and why….
Comment by Serhat SENEL — Thursday, October 18, 2024 @ 1:47 am
SENEL, have you looked at the map around Russia lately. We have basing rights in several former Soviet Republics, and the countries Russia has solid ties with are economic basket cases Iran and Syria. The Russians’ are locked out of North Africa entirely, they have lost Yemen, Pakistan remains mortally opposed to them, India is drifiting ever further from them and they have good relations with Iranian satrapies in the Gaza strip and parts of the Lebanon.
All this goes on even while Iran continues to fund anti-Russian insurgencies in the Caucasus. Turks are now as anti-American as the Greeks used to be. OK, not good, but I do nto see how that outewieghs the combination of the above facotrs, EU Europe’s (now including the Baltic Coast, and what used to be four Warsaw pact countries and parts of communist Yugoslavia) and NATO Europe’s (now including the nations listed above PLUS Romania and Bulgaria, and effectively former Soviet Georgia) solid hostility to Moscow (oh, sorry, I forgot, Russia can count on Belarus) and Russia’s precipitous demographic decline.
Yes, most Turks believe “the Valley of the Wolves” is real, but most Turkish intellectuals used to be willing slaves to international Communism, kept in line only by a thoroughgoingly repressive military regime. On the flip side, ever since we threatened to withdraw from Greece, their vitriolic anti-Americanism has faded considerably. The situation , especially in Turkey, could be far better, but it is hardly a disaster.
Comment by Honza P — Thursday, October 18, 2024 @ 9:13 am
Congressional foreign policy is a bad idea, especially when practiced unilaterally. UPDATED, repeatedly.
Grandstanding on an issue that is real, the last Armenian genocide, but also belongs relegated to history, a that took place mostly BEFORE Mustafa Kemal’s French-modeled Turkish Republic even existed, is increasing very real chances of war betw…
MPs in Turkey are due to debate a motion authorising cross-border military operations into northern Iraq to target Kurdish rebel bases there.
Parliament in Ankara is expected to approve the motion by a large majority amid widespread public support for military action against the PKK.
The Turks are in talks with the Iraqis to find another solution, but the degree to which the central government in Baghdad can do anything in the Kurdish region, let alone influence the PKK is essentially nonexistent.
And just to show that the US isn’t the only state that can play the terrorism card:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the motion does not mean a military operation is imminent.
But he also warned that Turkey would act decisively in its fight against terrorism.
[…] A follow-up from this morning: Turkish MPs back attacks in Iraq Turkey’s parliament has given permission for the government to launch military operations into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels. The vote was taken in defiance of pressure from the US and Iraq, which have called on Turkey for restraint. […]
[…] Poliblogger agrees that the Armenian resolution is fading fast. Good. His Turkish reporting dovetails nicely with mine, but it is shorter and funnier. A prior post was more dire. […]
I wondered last night what the response of the hardcore war/administration supporters was going to be to Sanchez’s speech (full text here). Apparently the tact is to be “hey, look: he criticized the press, too!”
First off, the fact that Sanchez also criticizes the press while heavily criticizing the administration (and, to be fair, the Congress) does not negate in any way the very significant, and dramatic, criticism that Sanchez levels at the administration.
Second, even if an antagonistic press makes things more difficult for policy-makers, the bottom line is that policy-makers make and execute the policy, not the press. As such, no matter what one says about the press, they are ultimately not culpable for what actually happens. Further, I long ago rejected the thesis that the press wasn’t reporting enough good news, for if there were reams of good news that were being suppressed, the administration could have found a way to get the word out. Instead, the administration has provided little hard data of true success, and instead has fed us platitudes about victory, fighting extremists and the like. Even the much vaunted Surge has not produced the promised results (as George Will rightly noted a few weeks back).
Third, it is worth remembering that the press corps was initially quite the booster of the war. Indeed, the NYT in particular (which is much maligned by the Right these days) published a number of stories that helped the administration make its case for war (we do remember Judith Miller, don’t we?). Further, the TV coverage (regardless of the network) was very positive in the early goings, indeed, well into the war.
Really, one could fit this latter point about Miller, et al, into Sanchez’s critique of the press, although it seems that he is talking solely about press criticism of the war rather than its initial support.
At the end of the day the administration got us into the war, not the press corps. Further, the mistakes in intelligence and planning were failures of the administration, not the press corps. The notion that blaming the press somehow creates a refuge from the real incompetence that has been demonstrated by this administration or even that it should somehow be considered equivalent to the criticism of the administration is really a rather desperate ploy. It is also rather absurd.
Now, it is fair to note that Sanchez criticized a lot of actors in that speech, but it is impossible to treat all criticism as equal, given that not all the responsibility is equal in these events, nor is the power of these actors to have effected the outcomes the same.
Woah… A General criticized the civilian leadership. Stop the presses.
In fact generals griping about the civilian leadership in wartime has a long history in this country. From Washington complaining to the continental congress about supplies (and General Harry Lee that they saddled him with) to McClellan savaging Lincoln through McArthur’s clashes with both FDR and Truman. Managing a conflict is a huge undertaking that always leaves the managers open to second guessing.
Looking through the speech I’m seeing a real sparcity of details. Generalities such as “neglect and incompetence” and “failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power.” Generalized critiques are easy. Those given here (and other generalities in the speech) could be given in any conflict in the countries’ history.
General Sanchez was given a huge responsibility, one that a good outcome would be difficult if not impossible. In the end he left with things in worse shape than he would have intended. It’s not surprising that he thinks the fault lies elsewhere. Undoubtedly he’s right to some degree, but it’s not evident that things would have been better in the best of cases. Satisfying an audience used to fast wars with successful outcomes was going to be difficult. General Sanchez wasn’t able to do that and pointing out that other people are at fault is understandable.
But it doesn’t mean the overall enterprise was a bad idea, or that the eventual outcome won’t be good.
Comment by Buckland — Saturday, October 13, 2024 @ 5:32 pm
I supported the war but like most, at this point, I really understand that we did not have either a plan or really good intelligence about what to do after the initial success in fighting. Sanchez is just repeating what McCain has said for years–We needed more troops and a better use of the troops. We should listen and learn. I was wrong and I hope others will admit when they are wrong. We need a good plan to get out and I hope with Rumsfeld gone we do find an honorable way to get out.
Comment by Mark — Saturday, October 13, 2024 @ 5:44 pm
I really don’t think it is about the length of the engagement. I always thought that we would be involved in Iraq for a rather long time, but I though that it would be a competenty run engagement–and it hasn’t been, and at this point I am pretty much conivinced that the overall enterprise was a bad idea, and that the eventual outcome won’t be good. The empirical evidence suggests that I am probably right and that the anything else is based on hope an faith, which are nice and all, but are often far from enough.
And really, in re: Sanchez, I am more interested in the reaction to his speech than the speech itself. As we have recently gone through a political fight in which we were told we weren’t supposed to criticize military figures, as they know more than we do.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Saturday, October 13, 2024 @ 5:46 pm
What the Media did not report from Sanchez’s Speech
If you read today’s Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, or the LA Times you would see that Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez was offering some harsh criticism on Iraq and the Administration for how it how it has conducted the War in Iraq. I…
I don’t see the General pointing to the media as a scapegoat for the strategy and planning failures. Instead the impression I get from the General’s speech and the criticism of the media as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle is that they have created or at least exasperated a political atmosphere to the point in which a bi-partisan solution in Iraq is next to impossible to develop.
That is criticism that they all very much deserve.
It’s a variant on what I’ve called the Scooby-Doo Villain Excuse.
“”Our master plan would have worked if it wasn’t for those pesky…liberals who undermined us/propaganda defeats that were probably faked/lilly-livered politicians/cowardly generals who wouldn’t be cruel enough/terr’ists who wouldn’t fight the way we wanted them to.” (Delete as applicable)”
You’d think by now they would’ve worked some kind of solution to the “peskies” into their master plan. After all, they’ve failed to carry through on their promises in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon…
You know, a solution like a sitting President teamed with a massive congressional majority and an in fact tame media who swallowed all the crappy reasons for war wholesale, at least for the first three years…oh, wait.
But they haven’t and in fact are already pressing to apply their warmongering to Iran and to Syria. Next time, they say the plan will work for sure, no matter what the experts on fighting a fourth-generation enemy have to say about it. As long as those “peskies” don’t backstab them again…
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Sunday, October 14, 2024 @ 12:35 pm
In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”
In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2024, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.
“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.
Funny, this sounds pretty much like what every critic of the war has been saying for some time. I wonder how the hard-core war supporters will deal with this? My guess is that they will attack Sanchez–which will be interesting to watch, given that the drum beat for months has been that we have to show deference to high level military leaders like General Petraeus, as they know better about these things than the rest of us. Of course, much of the counter-punch will be along these lines:
his role as commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal leaves General Sanchez vulnerable to criticism that that he is shifting the blame from himself and exacting revenge against an administration that replaced him as the top commander in the aftermath of the scandal and declined to nominate him for a fourth star, forcing his retirement.
I certainly have to admit that despite my early assumptions that this administration had assembled a team of competent policymakers, that they have come to be exemplified as follows:
“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”
[…] Other bloggers weigh in, courtesy of MemeOrandum: Daily Kos; The Democratic Daily (Be sure to bookmark Pamela Leavey’s new URL); The Moderate Voice; PoliBlog; The Middle Earth Journal; Drudge Retort […]
[…] PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » General Sanchez, Former Commander in Iraq, Harshly Criticizes the Administration in Speech Posted National Politics, Iraq War on Saturday, October 13th, 2024. […]
[…] I wondered last night what the response of the hardcore war/administration supporters< was going to be to Sanchez’s speech (full text here). Apparently the tact is to be “hey, look: he criticized the press, too!” […]
What the Media did not report from Sanchez’s Speech
If you read today’s Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, or the LA Times you would see that Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez was offering some harsh criticism on Iraq and the Administration for how it how it has conducted the War in Iraq. I…
What the Media did not report from Sanchez’s Speech
If you read today’s Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, or the LA Times you would see that Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez was offering some harsh criticism on Iraq and the Administration for how it how it has conducted the War in Iraq. I…
When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush’s surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
[…]
Anderson’s orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
That missing days translates into (according to the AP) $518 a month:
Under the GI Bill, two categories of educational benefits are available to Guard soldiers: one for those who have served less than two years and another for those who have put in more time. Among other things, the latter benefit provides as much as $800 per month for full-time training while the former provides $282.
Given that the orders themselves where written for exactly 1 day shy of the cutoff, it is no wonder that
Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.
This is an unconscionable situation, and one that will hopefully be quickly rectified.
Businesses do this all the time–they will hire people just under the threshold for certain types of benefits. I can remember working at a job where they would never give you more than 29 hours/week–even though they were constantly expanding and hiring more people.
The reason for the cap was that after 30 hours you would be considered “full time” and they would have to pay for health benefits.
This seems prudent management on the part of the Guard–particularly given the fact that the war has been enormously expensive and that there has been very little evidence of concern for costs.
I am not sure why the outrage. Racking up debt and wasting tax dollars on a meaningless war is bad enough–any way that the feds can bring some sanity to spending is welcome.
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, October 7, 2024 @ 6:15 pm
I take the general point. However, it is one thing to “manage” part time employees, it is yet another to deploy troops in battle and then screw them by a day.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Sunday, October 7, 2024 @ 7:10 pm
However, it is one thing to “manage” part time employees, it is yet another to deploy troops in battle and then screw them by a day.
I recognize they are getting screwed. I just think it is interesting that the techniques of corporate management–which were lauded as venerable characteristics of Bush (First MBA Prez), Rumsfeld (CEO turnaround guru), and Cheney (Mr. Privatize)–rarely get scrutiny when applied in the private sector (and in most of the public sector, for that matter), but as soon as it affects the “troops,” it becomes a big issue.
We have a volunteer military/Guard, so none of these people were forced to join up. Like with any other job, they sold their labor according to particular terms. It appears that these terms were promulgated, so no fraud was involved.
Why would anyone expect a corporate-minded administration to behave differently? As Bush said recently in support of his decision to veto SCHIP– it could lead to “socialism”–these types of benefit programs do the same. In fact, you could make the argument that the military is one of the most socialist-minded government programs. Bush is just trying to keep it real.
Comment by Ratoe — Sunday, October 7, 2024 @ 9:40 pm
In September, 884 civilians were killed by violence, less than half the figure for August, the government said.
[…]
There were 62 US military fatalities - the fewest in a single month since July 2024.
The troop surge and accompanying security crackdown is designed to give Iraq’s politicians breathing space to achieve reconciliation between the country’s rival factions.
Good news, yes, but still hardly stellar. It is a testament to the situation that only 884 civilians were killed by violence this past month is considered good news.
In regards to political progress:
However, our correspondent says, the political situation remains deadlocked and there are fears that when the extra troops are withdrawn the violence will escalate again.
It should also be pointed out Dr. Taylor, that the holy month of Ramadan has just ended.
Remember how ‘large’ the Al Qaeda threat is supposed to be in Iraq, and therefore we must stay to fight them?
And how U.S. ’sources’ earlier reported that Al-Qaeda planned on increasing the violence during Ramadan?
But, instead, the violence decreased - by a whopping 40%.
Doesn’t appear as if the US report was accurate- at all.
And that the ‘Al-Qaeda plan’ of violence worked about as great as ‘Bush’s plan’ for success.
Hmmm.
Oh, and about that shining beacon of hope Bush and Petreus call ‘Anbar’?
5 more of our solders just died -all in Anbar.
Comment by hazmaq — Monday, October 1, 2024 @ 12:21 pm
“This strikes me as a better measure of how things are going in Iraq.” Yeah, no kiddin’. By the way, you may be interested in the Wounded Warriors Project. Its a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here’s a link:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow
Jeff
Comment by Jeff — Saturday, October 27, 2024 @ 12:56 pm
Greetings,
The State Dept has long been a problem. The running ‘joke’ going around is something like this, “The Army and Marines are at war, State is at a Department Function while the rest of America is at the Mall.”
The PRTs have long been undermanned, the State People don’t leave the Green Zone and have an impact on the lives of people they are supposed to be there to help.
It is about time the rest of the Federal Government got into the fight.
For accurate info, check out Michal Yon and the rest of the embedded Blogsters. Even without the State Department, the Green Suiters are stepping up to the challenge and succeeding.
Regards,
Comment by Mike — Saturday, October 27, 2024 @ 10:27 pm