I’m supposed to be finishing another story tonight, but I’ve just come from Darcy Burner’s primary night party…and I have in front of me the results of the important races tonight in Washington’s newfangled “top two” primary.
It is unfair to extrapolate the results of elections in the “People’s Republic of Washington” directly onto a national map, but as I look as these results it seems fair to say that if any Republican strategists aren’t sweating bullets this morning it’s because they’ll be hustling for votes in towns like Maggie Valley, North Carolina (don’t forget to stop by Saratoga’s for the Wednesday night jazz…)…or, perhaps, Bessemer Bend, Wyoming.
For the rest of the Republican community, tonight’s events are not good news.
We have a fair amount to cover, so let’s get to it.
First, a few words on the unusual new primary system. The “top two” primary was brought to law through the initiative process after the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the old system.
How does the new primary work? Simple. The two candidates with the most votes in any primary election move on to the general. (There is an exception: judges are elected in this State; and candidates with “50% + 1” votes in the primary automatically win the election. They do not appear on the general election ballot.)
Odd results could occur. For example, there can be occasions where two Democratic or two Republican candidates are the top two finishers in a primary (or two of another party, theoretically…), which could leave either no Democratic or no Republican candidate—or potentially no Democrat and no Republican--in the general as a candidate for that position.
This will in fact happen in Washington’s Legislative District 7, Position 1 race, as four Republicans square off against each other today, with the top two Republicans making it to the general election ballot.
There is also great controversy over who can be a Democrat or a Republican; the current law allows the candidate to self-identify party affiliation, much to the frustration of both the Democratic and Republican Party establishments, who see the potential for considerable mischief in the arrangement. They also cite First Amendment “free association” issues and “branding” concerns.
All that controversy notwithstanding, about 75 well-wishers have shown up on a rainy night to see Darcy Burner, who is running for the second time against former Sheriff Dave (“I investigated the Green River Killer”) Reichert; each hoping to serve as the Representative from Washington’s 8th Congressional District in the 111th Congress.
She lost by about 7,000 votes to Reichert two years ago (out of 250,000 cast), and this race has attracted national attention as Reichert, naturally, is perceived to be vulnerable…and she is no longer perceived as unknown.
And judging by the results as they came in, she was again close…but she could not crack the 3% difference that was keeping them apart (47%-44%). In the King County voting she was only 462 votes behind Reichert, and the remainder of the difference is Reichert’s 2,100 vote lead in Pierce County.
Here’s the bad news for Reichert:
He’s a two-term incumbent from a district that has sent Republicans to Congress the past 8 elections—and he’s only leading by just those 2,600 votes—with lots of media money yet to come to the fight on the Democratic side and a public apparently ready to vote for change.
For the rest of Republican America…well, have a look at the Governor’s race:
Chris Gregiore (recently shortened from Christine) has the distinction of winning the closest gubernatorial election in American history (her margin, after two recounts and a lawsuit: 133 votes out of 2.8 million votes cast). She faces Dino Rossi, her 2004 opponent, again in this election…and you might expect the race would be just as tough for her. Rossi, and many others, certainly felt that was the case on August 14th.
It wasn’t. At the moment, with more than 98% of the primary vote counted, she’s leading by a 49% to 45% margin…suggesting the Don’t Know Dino ads are hitting the mark…and that the “fact check” response from the Rossi campaign is not.
Rossi issued this statement:
“We had a strong showing in the primary tonight. Current returns show we have received over 45 percent of the vote. To put these results into perspective, during the 2004 campaign I received just 34 percent of the vote in the primary and the General Election turned out to be significantly closer.”
Rossi’s name recognition will not be growing in this campaign, as it did during the ’04 cycle, and as a result he may have trouble growing his vote. Let me tell you, if your friendly fake consultant was working for Rossi, there’s a good chance that Prilosec might become part of the daily armor.
This is not the worst news for Republican strategists.
The worst news is found in the statewide “State Executive” positions that are partisan elected offices. For example…
…consider the State Treasurer position. “Treasurer-For-Life” Mike Murphy is not running for re-election, pitting two “zero name recognition” candidates against each other…and right now the Democrat, Jim McIntire, is losing by 29,000 out of 772,000 votes (44% to 40%), with only 24% of the voters showing up.
To make things a bit worse, the State’s three largest counties, with nearly 50% of the electorate between them (and counties that are often fertile ground for Democrats) are voting at less than the statewide average, suggesting turnout in Democratic-trending counties will be higher in November than it was today…especially with Obama at the top of the ticket.
…more downticket trouble for the Rs can be found in the Commissioner of Public Lands election, where Peter Goldmark (who might have been director of the State’s Department of Agriculture but still has no Statewide name recognition…) is running pretty much neck-and-neck with longtime incumbent Doug Sutherland, 50% to 49%.
Just so you know, Eastern Washington is fire engine red, electorally…and Western Washington’s more rural counties often provide the swing vote…which makes Goldmark’s success more surprising, as he’s an Eastern Washington Democrat.
…Democrat Jason Osgood, who previously worked with Washington Citizens for Fair Elections, pulled 33% of the vote in a Secretary of State race against the Republican incumbent Sam Reed, despite having no Statewide presence of any kind…or any name recognition, for that matter.
Of the nine Congressional Districts, the primary results suggest two safe Republican seats (WA-04 and WA-05), one uncertain race (the aforementioned WA-08), and at least six Democrats (WA-All The Others).
If Obama can raise turnout by an extra 3,000 new voters in WA-08, the resulting Delegation would be 7-2 Democratic…which would represent raising turnout by only 1% of the currently registered voters in that District.
…Spokane has two zero name recognition State Legislative candidates running for an empty seat, and the Democrat and Republican are running nearly even in a part of the State that should offer natural advantages to the Republican.
John Ahern, a 4-term Republican State Representative, also from Spokane, is also running in a near dead heat (50%-49%) against John Driscoll, who would be the first Democrat elected to this position since 1938.
In a Benton County race with no incumbent running (Conan O’Brien in the sun red, demographically), Carol Moser is stomping the Republican 40% to 18% in her Legislative race.
Incumbent Republican Jim Dunn is losing badly to Democrat Tim Probst (49% to 18%) in a Vancouver Legislative race that also would seem to favor Republicans.
I could go on and on, but this gives us a few general trends to examine:
Without Obama at the top of the ticket, Democrats are either staying close in Statewide elections—with no “name recognition” candidates—or grabbing the apparent lead in previously reliable Republican Legislative strongholds. In my quick search of the State Legislative results I could not find an incumbent Democrat who has fewer votes than a Republican challenger.
If Obama can bring enough new voters to the polls to raise turnout 1% WA-08 likely goes to Darcy Burner.
And finally, a Governor’s race that should have been much closer…ain’t.
There are several states (North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado…maybe even Indiana) where this trend could be a harbinger of very good things to come--and as I said at the top, outside of Maggie Valley and Bessemer Bend, the Republicans—especially downticket Republicans--might just be in a lot more trouble than they ever imagined.
Showing posts with label Dave Reichert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dave Reichert. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Friday, October 19, 2007
On Errata, Or, Your Author Apologizes
Although your friendly fake consultant tries to bring news that is interesting and accurate, I am obligated to apologize for and to correct two significant recent errors, which is the purpose of today’s conversation.
In both cases the “victims” are easily identifiable and public, and as a result we will offer a personal apology to each of them as well.
So with the introduction out of the way, let’s get to the salient facts.
The last story I published (On Solutions, Or, Congressman Reichert, I Believe You Were Looking For This) began by asserting that Democrats are unable to articulate a vision that will extract us from the Iraq mess.
When I posted this story at the (Washblog), however, I was reminded that Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have articulated such plans.
To be perfectly frank, I did not remember the positions of either Kucinich or Richardson when considering the candidates…and I actually sit through most of the debates.
Had I chosen my words more carefully I might have said that none of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination can offer such a vision, or I might have pointed out that few voters are able to identify any Democratic candidate’s vision for ending the war.
But I did not say either of those things, and as a result I owe Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich my apologies.
Sorry about that, gentlemen.
My bad.
I have one other example of how poor research can cause you to have to publicly ask forgiveness-and it took place in the story that set up the last one.
In that story I reported that Representative Dave Reichert is the Member representing Fort Lewis, Washington, when in fact the base is located in Washington’s 9th District…making Adam Smith their Representative.
In this case, I misread a map, which caused the error.
Interestingly, I sent a note to Reichert’s office pointing him to the original posting, and it’s replication at Kos, with an invitation to respond and correct any misimpressions or inaccuracies that might exist, and there was no response correcting my rather blatant error.
But that doesn’t really matter in the end-I made the error, and for that I apologize to the Congressman, and to you, the readers that are kind enough to look to me for interesting and useful news.
Having taken a day to review my methods, I feel confident that this is a failure that is not systemic, but was instead related to individual failures in each story.
As a result, I continue to move forward with stories currently under development, and you’ll see the product of that work over the next few days.
As for the future…I will be working harder than before to be as close to 100% accurate as I can be-but knowing that no one’s perfect, I suspect there will come a time when we have this conversation again.
Let’s just hope it’s not too soon.
As I’m writing this it is alternately cloudy and sunny, which is an excellent allegory for this situation-the work goes well, then a cloud or two obscure the good work, and then the sun comes out again, and you take advantage of that to get out and renew your commitment to getting the job done.
So once again, my apologies to everyone involved, my thanks for your “patronage”, and we’ll see you in a couple days with another story to tell.
In both cases the “victims” are easily identifiable and public, and as a result we will offer a personal apology to each of them as well.
So with the introduction out of the way, let’s get to the salient facts.
The last story I published (On Solutions, Or, Congressman Reichert, I Believe You Were Looking For This) began by asserting that Democrats are unable to articulate a vision that will extract us from the Iraq mess.
When I posted this story at the (Washblog), however, I was reminded that Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have articulated such plans.
To be perfectly frank, I did not remember the positions of either Kucinich or Richardson when considering the candidates…and I actually sit through most of the debates.
Had I chosen my words more carefully I might have said that none of the major candidates for the Democratic nomination can offer such a vision, or I might have pointed out that few voters are able to identify any Democratic candidate’s vision for ending the war.
But I did not say either of those things, and as a result I owe Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich my apologies.
Sorry about that, gentlemen.
My bad.
I have one other example of how poor research can cause you to have to publicly ask forgiveness-and it took place in the story that set up the last one.
In that story I reported that Representative Dave Reichert is the Member representing Fort Lewis, Washington, when in fact the base is located in Washington’s 9th District…making Adam Smith their Representative.
In this case, I misread a map, which caused the error.
Interestingly, I sent a note to Reichert’s office pointing him to the original posting, and it’s replication at Kos, with an invitation to respond and correct any misimpressions or inaccuracies that might exist, and there was no response correcting my rather blatant error.
But that doesn’t really matter in the end-I made the error, and for that I apologize to the Congressman, and to you, the readers that are kind enough to look to me for interesting and useful news.
Having taken a day to review my methods, I feel confident that this is a failure that is not systemic, but was instead related to individual failures in each story.
As a result, I continue to move forward with stories currently under development, and you’ll see the product of that work over the next few days.
As for the future…I will be working harder than before to be as close to 100% accurate as I can be-but knowing that no one’s perfect, I suspect there will come a time when we have this conversation again.
Let’s just hope it’s not too soon.
As I’m writing this it is alternately cloudy and sunny, which is an excellent allegory for this situation-the work goes well, then a cloud or two obscure the good work, and then the sun comes out again, and you take advantage of that to get out and renew your commitment to getting the job done.
So once again, my apologies to everyone involved, my thanks for your “patronage”, and we’ll see you in a couple days with another story to tell.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
On Solutions, Or, Congressman Reichert, I Believe You Were Looking For This
As I reported in a recent story, I was fortunate enough to have a talk with my Member of Congress, Dave Reichert, regarding the “surge”.
While we disagreed with many aspects of his (and my) interpretation of events, there was one valid point he made that deserves a detailed response: that Democrats cannot articulate a path forward that could be reasonably expected to reduce the chances of “the bloodshed and chaos” that is so ominously predicted in so many quarters.
My goal today is to reach way outside the conventional thinking to offer such a path.
So let’s get right to it, shall we?
Before I can offer a set of specific proposals, I need to take a minute to frame the discussion that is to follow.
I will do this through the use of a set of hypotheses.
For example:
--I would suggest we are fundamentally wrong to view the events in Iraq since more or less the 1960s as a series of actions that are motivated solely by the desire of one religious group to dominate another
--We view the conflict that is evident today as a battle against terrorism that is directed at us...or some vague notion of Islamofascism; when in fact much of the violence in Iraq is in no way related to the struggle between extremist elements in Islamic countries and the US.
--I submit that we can get better results by viewing the troubles in Iraq as fundamentally an economic and political power struggle, where various groups are seeking to fill the vacuum left by the removal of the Al-Tikriti clan from power.
--Unemployment and corruption combined with a “failure of hope” for the future are our biggest enemies. A functioning economy and a Government perceived as honest wouldn’t fix all the problems in Iraq; but if we were perceived as the ones who helped Iraq get back to work, it might well keep things from getting worse-and when you’re in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.
Our first hypothesis states that the events in Iraq are not solely related to the desire of one religious group to dominate another.
Is that correct?
Consider a few facts:
His name was not just Saddam. A more correct representation of his name would be Saddam Hussayn Al-Tikriti. Why does this matter? Because, as with many Iraqi names, the Al-Tikriti refers to the person’s tribe.
Remember the “Playing Cards”?
Look at the names...it’s Al-Tikriti all over the deck.
This fact alone tells us that a major portion of the Iraqi governing apparatus was tribally related-and when you combine this with the fact that the Baath Party was more or less a secular organization you can quickly see that Hussein’s was mostly a “capitalist” oppression, and not so much a religious one.
How did the Baath Party rule?
Not as a theocracy.
By Islamic standards, before 2003 Iraq was a middle of the road country. Women had more freedom of movement and options in public life than today. There was not a movement to establish a strict Sharia Law, nor an effort to “export Islam”.
Despite the claims of certain parties, there was no synergy between the Baath Party apparatus and Al Qaeda.
The economy was the real interest of Hussein’s-and the management of the “Oil for Food” program is an indication of how entrenched the culture of distributing opportunity to your friends for a piece of the action had become.
Political oppression? Plenty of it, indeed-but I submit that oppression, and the attacks on the Kurds and Shi’a were motivated more by a desire to remain in absolute power, facing no opposition, then they were a product of religious animosity.
Evidence to support this proposition is found in the fact that both Kurdish communities in northern Iraq (who are predominantly Sunni) and Shi’a communities were attacked on orders from Hussein, who of course was Sunni.
If the attacks were solely intended to send a religious message, why were fellow Sunnis in the north targeted?
It is important to keep in mind, as we evaluate all of this, that the area from more or less the Tigris River west to the Syrian border (the historically Sunni Arab area, which includes Tikrit, Falluja, and Hadithah) is the one portion of Iraq with the least oil resources; and that at the time of the gassings of the Kurds and Shi’a both were considering nationalist movements-funded by the oil beneath their lands. This would leave the Al-Tikritis with no real source of income. (Do you know what Iraq’s biggest export is after oil? I don’t either...and that’s not good if you’re running what’s left after the Iraqis with all the oil have broken away.)
In that context, the use of gas against Hussein’s own countrymen seems more logical-he did whatever he had to do to keep control of the cash register...and he was perfectly willing to send the most brutal of messages to anyone seeking to diminish that control.
We have advanced a second proposition in this discussion: that the violence in Iraq is not primarily a function of Al Qaeda exporting “Islamofascism” to a new “central front in the War on Terror”.
Sure enough, there are facts available that support this analysis. For example, we are told that “foreign fighters” are responsible for a rather small proportion of attacks in the country. Conversely, we are told that local combatants are the parties responsible for the great majority of attacks...both against US forces, and other Iraqis, as well.
That’s not surprising, if you think about it.
The most basic reality that US planners should have anticipated in 2003 is that no one really appreciates being invaded...no matter how “enlightened” the motives of the invader might seem.
The US itself is no exception. There is no question that the US Constitution is under wholesale assault by this Administration to a degree never experienced outside of a period of declared war. So try to imagine Gordon Brown announcing to Parliament that the UK feels the need for “regime change” in this country because the current Administration has become controlled by extremists and possesses “weapons of mass destruction”.
Imagine Mr. Brown announcing that British troops have landed on US shores, and will be marching on Washington...and then inviting us to “greet them as liberators”.
Despite the best intentions of the UK forces, the greeting would probably look something more like the biggest hunting season you ever saw, with militia members finally getting to use those stashed antitank rockets that are probably buried in back yards all over this country.
And so it is in Iraq.
Obviously the fact that enormous quantities of munitions were left laying around and unguarded makes it even easier to not “greet us as liberators”; and facts suggest that something like the process I’ve just described is taking place.
Of course, violence in Iraq is not just directed at the “coalition of the willing”-a major portion of the violence is between the Iraqis themselves.
Our third proposition addresses that violence, and suggests that majority of the violence is not predicated on religious struggle, but economic.
As we previously discussed, control of a lot of oil has suddenly changed hands, and conventional thinking might lead us to believe that this asset will be divided along sectarian lines.
The fact that the Mahdi Army, led by Al-Sadr is fighting the government of Al-Maliki, and that both are Shi’a...and the fact that Shi’a sects have begun to violently engage with each other in the Basra region as UK troops withdraw should tell you two things...
...it’s not all about sect, and... .
...despite what Joe Biden might think about the wisdom of such a plan, dividing the country into three parts along sectarian lines will not stop the Shi’a on Shi’a struggle; which is a major component of the troubles today, and likely to be a greater portion of the troubles in the future.
The history of Iraq, for most of those alive today, is the 35 years that the Baath Party has held power-and total control of the economy...and all that oil money, and the oppression and fighting with Iran that accompanied those years....and of course, the 12 years between the Gulf Wars when the US operated the “no-fly” zones, and led the charge for the sanctions that so affected average Iraqi’s lives, and the 5 years that have followed.
And all of a sudden, the lid of the “pressure cooker” that had suppressed all other political aspirations has been removed. The internal power struggles, and the perception that Al-Sadr represents Iraq’s Shi’a poor (and that the Iraqi Government doesn’t) have come to the front, as has Iran’s interest in a more theocratic-and Shi’a dominated-Iraq.
Al-Sadr also seems to benefit from a reputation of being less corrupt than Al-Maliki’s allies in Government.
All of this said, we should realize that religious considerations are to varying degrees important to the players; and that appears to be particularly true in the south.
Which brings us to solutions...
Of course, before we can discuss what to do, we need to define what we are trying to do.
With all respect to Congressman Reichert and those who share his perspective, there seems little probability that the surge will develop conditions that achieve the political reconciliation he seeks.
To put it another way, Iraq is not gonna be a “thousand points of light” anytime soon.
My goals are much more modest:
--Success would be to stop creating conditions that engender resentment towards the US.
--Success would be finding ways to help put Iraqis to work.
--Success would be working with institutions inside and outside of Government to improve the professionalism of Government; with the goal of reducing the perception that corruption is the normal way of doing business.
--Any success we might attain in “engaging” leaders and future leaders (religious, tribal, business, and political...who are often the same people) to whom we currently have no direct connection would be a greater victory that we have today.
Bill Richardson aptly points out that when it comes to engendering resentment, the presence of US troops is making things worse, not better.
So the first thing that should be done, Congressman, is to get the troops out of the business of policing a civil war.
I suspect if we were sitting together having this conversation you would tell me that we cannot withdraw troops because of the potential for bloodshed and chaos once we leave. To which I would respond...
...we are incapable of continuing the surge past this spring. We just don’t have the troops. If the surge was required for “victory”, and we can no longer continue the surge, how are we to achieve the “more stable, self-sufficient Iraq” you were hoping for in January?
...even if we had the troops to continue the surge forever, there is no political will to create the reconciliation the surge was supposed to engender. All knowledgeable observers, including General Petraeus, agree that the only way to success of any kind is through the political process-and that, as the General says, the process needs to include our opponents as well as our friends.
...the surge does not reduce the pent up pressures that have developed between tribal and religious groups over these past 35 years, and more and more it seems evident that we are merely delaying any retribution that might occur-and losing troops to do it.
Another source of resentment: the state of the economy. As we discussed above, unemployment is the enemy, and we should more or less hire every Iraqi we can find to rebuild whatever local communities request that is reasonable.
The Defense Department has discretionary funds available for commanders, and we need to do the same thing on a much larger scale through the auspices of the State Department. Many more Provincial Reconstruction Teams resources are needed and local “Sub Teams” should be established. This will require the presence of troops for some time to come, for the purposes of security. But there’s no reason for 130,000 troops and another 150,000 or so contractors...and probably not 30,000, either.
My next idea for the Congressman will involve some looking at the neighbors for inspiration-particularly Syria and Jordan.
If we are to create a more professional governing community, we should aggressively start the process of educating those future leaders...even those who come from groups we might not today support.
Iranians and Iraqis attended US schools in the past, along with citizens from many other countries. Do these contacts matter? I would invite the Congressman to consider these words:
Who said that?
Our current President, that’s who.
To get a sense of what impact this can have, here’s a list of foreign leaders who attended school in the US-and the list literally goes from Afghanistan to Zambia.
Training in the US is a good idea...but what can be accomplished locally? That’s where Jordan comes in.
The Talal Abu-Ghazaleh College of Business in Amman, Jordan is an excellent example of what we have not yet been successful in creating in Iraq-a genuine professional school that can operate with reasonable security.
Schools like this can be created in Iraq-if we make the schools either inclusive...or we help the various groups on the ground set up schools that meet their own needs...always trying to emphasize the positive effect on Iraqi citizens from knowing how to operate and maintain the infrastructure they are building.
This needs to go both ways...until we have schools that teach Americans how to understand this part of the world, our actions are as likely to fail as they are to succeed.
The mistrust that currently exists between the US and the Iraqi communities suggests we may have to accept a limited degree of control and oversight in order to create the perception that we aren’t ramming these schools down anyone’s throats.
This is like drilling wells for African villages-you build the facilities based on what the communities and the US can arrange...but then you let the locals run the show, and you hope they like you the better for it. That process, repeated a thousand times or so, is not only cheaper than today’s combat operations...it gets better results. As a matter of fact, it’s the exact same process we are using in places as disparate as the Philippines and Angola and Somalia-and Baghram.
The faster the US is perceived as the country that builds things for poor people the faster we will find real National Security-because those folks will have less reason to hate us.
It sounds simplistic, but if it’s already our policy in the rest of the world...why not Iraq?
Along the same lines, we need to get credit into the local economy-and the Syrians, who are attempting to adopt a “social market economy” model, are trying to move ahead with a brand of capitalism that both connects their economy to the larger world economy and capital flows; and does it while being empathetic with Islamic economic sensibilities.
We could learn much from an Islamist approach to economic reconstruction as we try to redevelop the economy of the next-door country.
Finally: we have to get to know the people we want to persuade them to see our point of view.
Advertisers the world over know that the first step in any communications effort is to know your target market-and if there’s one thing we don’t know enough about, it’s Iraq.
We don’t speak the language, we don’t understand the culture, and we have limited personal relationships with local leaders. To make matters worse, we transfer out our troops just as soon as they get to know the local leaders, and we replace them with a new set of troops who have to develop the relationships all over again.
This is another State Department and Intelligence Community problem, and we need to have greater Defense/State Department integration so that these relationships can be developed and nurtured over longer periods of time.
To paraphrase George Patton, why take the same real estate twice?
So Congressman Reichert, there you have it: a strategy that is far more likely to work than what the President has proposed to this point, a strategy that will stop us from digging our proverbial hole deeper, and a strategy that will, in the end, save lives-ours and theirs.
And here’s the best part-this same strategy would also go a long way towards fixing our Iran problem.
While we disagreed with many aspects of his (and my) interpretation of events, there was one valid point he made that deserves a detailed response: that Democrats cannot articulate a path forward that could be reasonably expected to reduce the chances of “the bloodshed and chaos” that is so ominously predicted in so many quarters.
My goal today is to reach way outside the conventional thinking to offer such a path.
So let’s get right to it, shall we?
Before I can offer a set of specific proposals, I need to take a minute to frame the discussion that is to follow.
I will do this through the use of a set of hypotheses.
For example:
--I would suggest we are fundamentally wrong to view the events in Iraq since more or less the 1960s as a series of actions that are motivated solely by the desire of one religious group to dominate another
--We view the conflict that is evident today as a battle against terrorism that is directed at us...or some vague notion of Islamofascism; when in fact much of the violence in Iraq is in no way related to the struggle between extremist elements in Islamic countries and the US.
--I submit that we can get better results by viewing the troubles in Iraq as fundamentally an economic and political power struggle, where various groups are seeking to fill the vacuum left by the removal of the Al-Tikriti clan from power.
--Unemployment and corruption combined with a “failure of hope” for the future are our biggest enemies. A functioning economy and a Government perceived as honest wouldn’t fix all the problems in Iraq; but if we were perceived as the ones who helped Iraq get back to work, it might well keep things from getting worse-and when you’re in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.
Our first hypothesis states that the events in Iraq are not solely related to the desire of one religious group to dominate another.
Is that correct?
Consider a few facts:
His name was not just Saddam. A more correct representation of his name would be Saddam Hussayn Al-Tikriti. Why does this matter? Because, as with many Iraqi names, the Al-Tikriti refers to the person’s tribe.
Remember the “Playing Cards”?
Look at the names...it’s Al-Tikriti all over the deck.
This fact alone tells us that a major portion of the Iraqi governing apparatus was tribally related-and when you combine this with the fact that the Baath Party was more or less a secular organization you can quickly see that Hussein’s was mostly a “capitalist” oppression, and not so much a religious one.
How did the Baath Party rule?
Not as a theocracy.
By Islamic standards, before 2003 Iraq was a middle of the road country. Women had more freedom of movement and options in public life than today. There was not a movement to establish a strict Sharia Law, nor an effort to “export Islam”.
Despite the claims of certain parties, there was no synergy between the Baath Party apparatus and Al Qaeda.
The economy was the real interest of Hussein’s-and the management of the “Oil for Food” program is an indication of how entrenched the culture of distributing opportunity to your friends for a piece of the action had become.
Political oppression? Plenty of it, indeed-but I submit that oppression, and the attacks on the Kurds and Shi’a were motivated more by a desire to remain in absolute power, facing no opposition, then they were a product of religious animosity.
Evidence to support this proposition is found in the fact that both Kurdish communities in northern Iraq (who are predominantly Sunni) and Shi’a communities were attacked on orders from Hussein, who of course was Sunni.
If the attacks were solely intended to send a religious message, why were fellow Sunnis in the north targeted?
It is important to keep in mind, as we evaluate all of this, that the area from more or less the Tigris River west to the Syrian border (the historically Sunni Arab area, which includes Tikrit, Falluja, and Hadithah) is the one portion of Iraq with the least oil resources; and that at the time of the gassings of the Kurds and Shi’a both were considering nationalist movements-funded by the oil beneath their lands. This would leave the Al-Tikritis with no real source of income. (Do you know what Iraq’s biggest export is after oil? I don’t either...and that’s not good if you’re running what’s left after the Iraqis with all the oil have broken away.)
In that context, the use of gas against Hussein’s own countrymen seems more logical-he did whatever he had to do to keep control of the cash register...and he was perfectly willing to send the most brutal of messages to anyone seeking to diminish that control.
We have advanced a second proposition in this discussion: that the violence in Iraq is not primarily a function of Al Qaeda exporting “Islamofascism” to a new “central front in the War on Terror”.
Sure enough, there are facts available that support this analysis. For example, we are told that “foreign fighters” are responsible for a rather small proportion of attacks in the country. Conversely, we are told that local combatants are the parties responsible for the great majority of attacks...both against US forces, and other Iraqis, as well.
That’s not surprising, if you think about it.
The most basic reality that US planners should have anticipated in 2003 is that no one really appreciates being invaded...no matter how “enlightened” the motives of the invader might seem.
The US itself is no exception. There is no question that the US Constitution is under wholesale assault by this Administration to a degree never experienced outside of a period of declared war. So try to imagine Gordon Brown announcing to Parliament that the UK feels the need for “regime change” in this country because the current Administration has become controlled by extremists and possesses “weapons of mass destruction”.
Imagine Mr. Brown announcing that British troops have landed on US shores, and will be marching on Washington...and then inviting us to “greet them as liberators”.
Despite the best intentions of the UK forces, the greeting would probably look something more like the biggest hunting season you ever saw, with militia members finally getting to use those stashed antitank rockets that are probably buried in back yards all over this country.
And so it is in Iraq.
Obviously the fact that enormous quantities of munitions were left laying around and unguarded makes it even easier to not “greet us as liberators”; and facts suggest that something like the process I’ve just described is taking place.
Of course, violence in Iraq is not just directed at the “coalition of the willing”-a major portion of the violence is between the Iraqis themselves.
Our third proposition addresses that violence, and suggests that majority of the violence is not predicated on religious struggle, but economic.
As we previously discussed, control of a lot of oil has suddenly changed hands, and conventional thinking might lead us to believe that this asset will be divided along sectarian lines.
The fact that the Mahdi Army, led by Al-Sadr is fighting the government of Al-Maliki, and that both are Shi’a...and the fact that Shi’a sects have begun to violently engage with each other in the Basra region as UK troops withdraw should tell you two things...
...it’s not all about sect, and... .
...despite what Joe Biden might think about the wisdom of such a plan, dividing the country into three parts along sectarian lines will not stop the Shi’a on Shi’a struggle; which is a major component of the troubles today, and likely to be a greater portion of the troubles in the future.
The history of Iraq, for most of those alive today, is the 35 years that the Baath Party has held power-and total control of the economy...and all that oil money, and the oppression and fighting with Iran that accompanied those years....and of course, the 12 years between the Gulf Wars when the US operated the “no-fly” zones, and led the charge for the sanctions that so affected average Iraqi’s lives, and the 5 years that have followed.
And all of a sudden, the lid of the “pressure cooker” that had suppressed all other political aspirations has been removed. The internal power struggles, and the perception that Al-Sadr represents Iraq’s Shi’a poor (and that the Iraqi Government doesn’t) have come to the front, as has Iran’s interest in a more theocratic-and Shi’a dominated-Iraq.
Al-Sadr also seems to benefit from a reputation of being less corrupt than Al-Maliki’s allies in Government.
All of this said, we should realize that religious considerations are to varying degrees important to the players; and that appears to be particularly true in the south.
Which brings us to solutions...
Of course, before we can discuss what to do, we need to define what we are trying to do.
With all respect to Congressman Reichert and those who share his perspective, there seems little probability that the surge will develop conditions that achieve the political reconciliation he seeks.
To put it another way, Iraq is not gonna be a “thousand points of light” anytime soon.
My goals are much more modest:
--Success would be to stop creating conditions that engender resentment towards the US.
--Success would be finding ways to help put Iraqis to work.
--Success would be working with institutions inside and outside of Government to improve the professionalism of Government; with the goal of reducing the perception that corruption is the normal way of doing business.
--Any success we might attain in “engaging” leaders and future leaders (religious, tribal, business, and political...who are often the same people) to whom we currently have no direct connection would be a greater victory that we have today.
Bill Richardson aptly points out that when it comes to engendering resentment, the presence of US troops is making things worse, not better.
So the first thing that should be done, Congressman, is to get the troops out of the business of policing a civil war.
I suspect if we were sitting together having this conversation you would tell me that we cannot withdraw troops because of the potential for bloodshed and chaos once we leave. To which I would respond...
...we are incapable of continuing the surge past this spring. We just don’t have the troops. If the surge was required for “victory”, and we can no longer continue the surge, how are we to achieve the “more stable, self-sufficient Iraq” you were hoping for in January?
...even if we had the troops to continue the surge forever, there is no political will to create the reconciliation the surge was supposed to engender. All knowledgeable observers, including General Petraeus, agree that the only way to success of any kind is through the political process-and that, as the General says, the process needs to include our opponents as well as our friends.
...the surge does not reduce the pent up pressures that have developed between tribal and religious groups over these past 35 years, and more and more it seems evident that we are merely delaying any retribution that might occur-and losing troops to do it.
Another source of resentment: the state of the economy. As we discussed above, unemployment is the enemy, and we should more or less hire every Iraqi we can find to rebuild whatever local communities request that is reasonable.
The Defense Department has discretionary funds available for commanders, and we need to do the same thing on a much larger scale through the auspices of the State Department. Many more Provincial Reconstruction Teams resources are needed and local “Sub Teams” should be established. This will require the presence of troops for some time to come, for the purposes of security. But there’s no reason for 130,000 troops and another 150,000 or so contractors...and probably not 30,000, either.
My next idea for the Congressman will involve some looking at the neighbors for inspiration-particularly Syria and Jordan.
If we are to create a more professional governing community, we should aggressively start the process of educating those future leaders...even those who come from groups we might not today support.
Iranians and Iraqis attended US schools in the past, along with citizens from many other countries. Do these contacts matter? I would invite the Congressman to consider these words:
“The relationships that are formed between individuals from different countries, as part of international education programs and exchanges ...foster goodwill that develops into vibrant, mutually beneficial partnerships among nations."
Who said that?
Our current President, that’s who.
To get a sense of what impact this can have, here’s a list of foreign leaders who attended school in the US-and the list literally goes from Afghanistan to Zambia.
Training in the US is a good idea...but what can be accomplished locally? That’s where Jordan comes in.
The Talal Abu-Ghazaleh College of Business in Amman, Jordan is an excellent example of what we have not yet been successful in creating in Iraq-a genuine professional school that can operate with reasonable security.
Schools like this can be created in Iraq-if we make the schools either inclusive...or we help the various groups on the ground set up schools that meet their own needs...always trying to emphasize the positive effect on Iraqi citizens from knowing how to operate and maintain the infrastructure they are building.
This needs to go both ways...until we have schools that teach Americans how to understand this part of the world, our actions are as likely to fail as they are to succeed.
The mistrust that currently exists between the US and the Iraqi communities suggests we may have to accept a limited degree of control and oversight in order to create the perception that we aren’t ramming these schools down anyone’s throats.
This is like drilling wells for African villages-you build the facilities based on what the communities and the US can arrange...but then you let the locals run the show, and you hope they like you the better for it. That process, repeated a thousand times or so, is not only cheaper than today’s combat operations...it gets better results. As a matter of fact, it’s the exact same process we are using in places as disparate as the Philippines and Angola and Somalia-and Baghram.
The faster the US is perceived as the country that builds things for poor people the faster we will find real National Security-because those folks will have less reason to hate us.
It sounds simplistic, but if it’s already our policy in the rest of the world...why not Iraq?
Along the same lines, we need to get credit into the local economy-and the Syrians, who are attempting to adopt a “social market economy” model, are trying to move ahead with a brand of capitalism that both connects their economy to the larger world economy and capital flows; and does it while being empathetic with Islamic economic sensibilities.
We could learn much from an Islamist approach to economic reconstruction as we try to redevelop the economy of the next-door country.
Finally: we have to get to know the people we want to persuade them to see our point of view.
Advertisers the world over know that the first step in any communications effort is to know your target market-and if there’s one thing we don’t know enough about, it’s Iraq.
We don’t speak the language, we don’t understand the culture, and we have limited personal relationships with local leaders. To make matters worse, we transfer out our troops just as soon as they get to know the local leaders, and we replace them with a new set of troops who have to develop the relationships all over again.
This is another State Department and Intelligence Community problem, and we need to have greater Defense/State Department integration so that these relationships can be developed and nurtured over longer periods of time.
To paraphrase George Patton, why take the same real estate twice?
So Congressman Reichert, there you have it: a strategy that is far more likely to work than what the President has proposed to this point, a strategy that will stop us from digging our proverbial hole deeper, and a strategy that will, in the end, save lives-ours and theirs.
And here’s the best part-this same strategy would also go a long way towards fixing our Iran problem.
Monday, October 8, 2007
A Fake Consultant Exclusive: The Congressman And I Discuss “The Surge”
Every once in a while, serendipity provides a gift to those who answer its call.
But like a cat, you must be always ready; and that’s why I decided to turn around and see what was going on under the tent perched on the corner of the vacant lot this afternoon.
What was going on was that Republican Congressman Dave Reichert was giving a speech. I don’t get a chance to meet the local Congressman very often, and I said to myself: “Self…what a great chance to talk about Iraq…with a Member of Congress. You should go talk to him.”
So I did.
As it turns out, he was most gracious and more than willing to talk; and we spent about 10 minutes in a back-and-forth. As Paul Harvey would say, “the rest…of the story” is continued below.
There are a couple of reasons why I was particularly interested in talking about Iraq: one is that I have a godson now involved; but even more important is that Reichert is, in effect, the Congressman from the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, as Fort Lewis, Washington is within his district (WA-08). As you may or may not know, these troops are at “the point of the spear” as far as the “surge” is concerned, and they are taking casualties in substantial numbers.
So by now I’ve parked the car, and walked up to join the crowd of about 60. The Congressman is here today to be honored for his efforts to help the City of Snoqualmie with its redevelopment efforts; and with the requisite speechifying and handshaking of dignitaries complete, it’s time for my first question…which is basically that I don’t understand how he can continue to support the surge.
Reichert began by reminding me that he was not in office at the time of the original vote. He pointed out that members of both parties felt that there was a reason for the invasion.
Interestingly, he then commented on the fact that hindsight is 20/20…but he told me that if he knew then what he knows today, he would have still voted to invade.
He told me he had just returned from a trip to Iraq with Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, and that Baird had changed his mind as a result of the trip, and now supports remaining in the country.
Reichert recounted his trip through the market, and told me that on previous trips he could not have visited the “Red Zone”. He expressed more than once his belief that violence had been dramatically reduced, as well.
He told me that he had spoken to “hundreds” of troops on the ground, and that not a single one had expressed to him that we should get out because the war was serving no purpose.
He recalled a meeting with Jane Harmon, amongst others; and the problem with the Democratic stance on the war, as he sees it, is that the Democrats offer no alternative plan-or at least could not offer one when he confronted Harmon and the others about this issue at that meeting.
Taking a moment to offer a second question, I asked Reichert if the violence might be reduced in Baghdad these days because we are now at the end of a process of ethnic cleansing. I reminded him that Sunni and Shi’a are separated now more than ever before in the city. I pointed out that Sunni enclaves are now surrounded by blast walls, and that the Shi’a use the checkpoints as locations for targeting Sunni to be attacked if they enter Shi’a territory.
The Congressman told me I am mistaken regarding these issues. He informed me that ethnic cleansing is not an issue. In fact, he reports the local police chief he spoke with (who happens to be Shi’a-I asked), is married to a Sunni woman, and that there are no problems whatsoever. He further challenged my sources regarding this sort of information.
He also reports that Shi’a and Sunni death squads were targeting each other, but that they represent a small minority of the residents of these communities, and that this problem is nothing about which we should be concerned.
He then told me that he is the Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee, and as a result he has access to “Top Secret information” that flows from a source at a higher level than mine.
A most interesting moment occurred when he told me that we have to listen to the Generals to decide when to get out of Iraq. I asked him if it wasn’t actually Congress’ job to tell the Generals when to fight wars and when to end them. He said it was not. I then asked him if he believed in the concept of civilian control of the military.
He responded that he did not want me to put words in his mouth; that he was basically trying to say that we don’t want 435 more Generals micromanaging the war.
Although he spent a considerable time talking to me, at one point he looked at me and said “I can see I’m just wasting my time here…” in a reference to his inability to sway me to his point of view. Nonetheless, we continued to engage until his “handler” gently played “bad cop” and led him away.
So what did we learn?
The Congressman seeks succor in the fact that violence is reduced, he does not acknowledge that there are ethnic cleansing problems, now or in the past, and he tells us he is of the belief that we are on the right track.
What he did not like was the question of civilian control over the military. He was far more comfortable with the concept that we should not question our Generals.
What he did not mention was any element of the political situation…suggesting there is not much he wants to highlight in that regard, particularly as it relates to the problems of internal Governmental struggle and its connection to the inability to successfully “nation build”.
Ironically, on the day we were speaking, Iraq’s Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister was announcing that “there will be no reconciliation…”
The question I forgot to ask?
In an effort to improve the conditions faced by our troops back home, I have proposed that Members of Congress get their health care from VA and military facilities. I forgot to ask the Congressman how he might view such a proposal.
In any event, that’s the story for today: we meet a Member of Congress, we have a conversation, and we find that, although he was happy to spend the time, we still find ourselves very far apart on some very basic issues.
But like a cat, you must be always ready; and that’s why I decided to turn around and see what was going on under the tent perched on the corner of the vacant lot this afternoon.
What was going on was that Republican Congressman Dave Reichert was giving a speech. I don’t get a chance to meet the local Congressman very often, and I said to myself: “Self…what a great chance to talk about Iraq…with a Member of Congress. You should go talk to him.”
So I did.
As it turns out, he was most gracious and more than willing to talk; and we spent about 10 minutes in a back-and-forth. As Paul Harvey would say, “the rest…of the story” is continued below.
There are a couple of reasons why I was particularly interested in talking about Iraq: one is that I have a godson now involved; but even more important is that Reichert is, in effect, the Congressman from the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, as Fort Lewis, Washington is within his district (WA-08). As you may or may not know, these troops are at “the point of the spear” as far as the “surge” is concerned, and they are taking casualties in substantial numbers.
So by now I’ve parked the car, and walked up to join the crowd of about 60. The Congressman is here today to be honored for his efforts to help the City of Snoqualmie with its redevelopment efforts; and with the requisite speechifying and handshaking of dignitaries complete, it’s time for my first question…which is basically that I don’t understand how he can continue to support the surge.
Reichert began by reminding me that he was not in office at the time of the original vote. He pointed out that members of both parties felt that there was a reason for the invasion.
Interestingly, he then commented on the fact that hindsight is 20/20…but he told me that if he knew then what he knows today, he would have still voted to invade.
He told me he had just returned from a trip to Iraq with Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, and that Baird had changed his mind as a result of the trip, and now supports remaining in the country.
Reichert recounted his trip through the market, and told me that on previous trips he could not have visited the “Red Zone”. He expressed more than once his belief that violence had been dramatically reduced, as well.
He told me that he had spoken to “hundreds” of troops on the ground, and that not a single one had expressed to him that we should get out because the war was serving no purpose.
He recalled a meeting with Jane Harmon, amongst others; and the problem with the Democratic stance on the war, as he sees it, is that the Democrats offer no alternative plan-or at least could not offer one when he confronted Harmon and the others about this issue at that meeting.
Taking a moment to offer a second question, I asked Reichert if the violence might be reduced in Baghdad these days because we are now at the end of a process of ethnic cleansing. I reminded him that Sunni and Shi’a are separated now more than ever before in the city. I pointed out that Sunni enclaves are now surrounded by blast walls, and that the Shi’a use the checkpoints as locations for targeting Sunni to be attacked if they enter Shi’a territory.
The Congressman told me I am mistaken regarding these issues. He informed me that ethnic cleansing is not an issue. In fact, he reports the local police chief he spoke with (who happens to be Shi’a-I asked), is married to a Sunni woman, and that there are no problems whatsoever. He further challenged my sources regarding this sort of information.
He also reports that Shi’a and Sunni death squads were targeting each other, but that they represent a small minority of the residents of these communities, and that this problem is nothing about which we should be concerned.
He then told me that he is the Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee, and as a result he has access to “Top Secret information” that flows from a source at a higher level than mine.
A most interesting moment occurred when he told me that we have to listen to the Generals to decide when to get out of Iraq. I asked him if it wasn’t actually Congress’ job to tell the Generals when to fight wars and when to end them. He said it was not. I then asked him if he believed in the concept of civilian control of the military.
He responded that he did not want me to put words in his mouth; that he was basically trying to say that we don’t want 435 more Generals micromanaging the war.
Although he spent a considerable time talking to me, at one point he looked at me and said “I can see I’m just wasting my time here…” in a reference to his inability to sway me to his point of view. Nonetheless, we continued to engage until his “handler” gently played “bad cop” and led him away.
So what did we learn?
The Congressman seeks succor in the fact that violence is reduced, he does not acknowledge that there are ethnic cleansing problems, now or in the past, and he tells us he is of the belief that we are on the right track.
What he did not like was the question of civilian control over the military. He was far more comfortable with the concept that we should not question our Generals.
What he did not mention was any element of the political situation…suggesting there is not much he wants to highlight in that regard, particularly as it relates to the problems of internal Governmental struggle and its connection to the inability to successfully “nation build”.
Ironically, on the day we were speaking, Iraq’s Kurdish Deputy Prime Minister was announcing that “there will be no reconciliation…”
The question I forgot to ask?
In an effort to improve the conditions faced by our troops back home, I have proposed that Members of Congress get their health care from VA and military facilities. I forgot to ask the Congressman how he might view such a proposal.
In any event, that’s the story for today: we meet a Member of Congress, we have a conversation, and we find that, although he was happy to spend the time, we still find ourselves very far apart on some very basic issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
