PhotoDude.com

Wed. Sep 29, 2004

The Battle for Washington

There’s a war in Iraq. But the real battle is to capture or defend Washington, DC. Gee, do you think that the latter might be destroying hopes of any rational discussion of the former?

It’s not just a fear, it’s a strategy: “In a dramatic strategic shift that two of his top advisers called ‘high-risk,’ Kerry and his campaign are using a string of speeches, statements and television ads to argue that the United States will be more susceptible to higher casualties in Iraq and future terrorism threats at home if Bush is reelected [...] The Democratic offensive comes as Bush and Republicans are increasingly suggesting the election of Kerry would better the chances of another Sept. 11, or worse.”

It’s good that we can have important national dialogues about the war we’re in and the threat we face without getting it all caught up in ME! ME! ME!!! VOTE FOR ME!!! If we can expect both Kerry and Bush to paint very different pictures of Iraq designed solely to fit their personal color schemes, where should we turn for some accuracy?

You might think to turn to the professionals in the intelligence, military, and diplomatic communities. But, they’re a part of the Bush administration, too. Aren’t they?

A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.

People at the CIA “are mad at the policy in Iraq because it’s a disaster, and they’re digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,” said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. “There’s no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.”

“It is getting worse,” agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. “It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago.”

This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. “Yes, it’s getting worse,” he said of the insurgency on ABC’s “This Week.”

As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, “There’s a real war going on here that’s not just” the CIA against the administration on Iraq “but the State Department and the military” as well.

“Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people,” said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, “I don’t think the political discourse that we’re in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There’s a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side.”

Washington Post: “Growing Pessimism on Iraq”

CIA, Army staff, and the State Department. It appears to be getting harder and harder to find positive views of Iraq within the Bush administration that don’t emanate from the White House, the Neo-Con Nexus (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.), or the campaign apparatus.

So. Should we trust the guy who says he can magically materialize international support, somehow correct the bedrock mistakes that were made, and then start withdrawing US troops in a year? Should we trust the guy who says we just need to be strong, stay the course, and fight through the elections in January, because the situation in Iraq is better than you’re being lead to believe?

Or should we believe the guys who say “Yes, it’s getting worse, there’s no obvious way to fix it, and at best, we can expect a semi-failed state filled with terrorists and a succession of weak governments”? A collective statement that leaves unsaid, neither of the two candidates can really “fix” this, it’s likely too late for that. Too many formative mistakes were made, too long ago to be “fixed” by any short term patch either candidate has suggested.

You’ve likely already chosen to believe one of those three quite opposed views. But as we prepare to listen to 90 minutes of Bush and Kerry debating foreign policy on Thursday night, we all ought to absorb what Steven Metz said: “I don’t think the political discourse that we’re in the middle of accurately reflects anything.”