Why Iraq Matters

Also published in https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-iraq-matters-scot-faulkner?trk=prof-post




Why is Iraq relevant? Specifically, why is the decision to fight the second Iraq War relevant to the 2016 Presidential election?


It is about more than just having another Bush running for President.  Ramadi falls, Iraqi military units flee before ISIS, and Iran extends its reach in the region. What a Republican President did back in 2003 has become a crucible on which the next generation of Republican leaders and their advisors must be tested.


The Second Iraq War is relevant because the senior policy advisors who embraced pre-emptive war and led America and the Middle East over a cliff are still around and serving in the inner circles of Jeb Bush and most other Republican Presidential candidates.


This generation of inept, incompetent, policy players did everything except slink away in shame.  They landed high paying and prestigious jobs in think tanks, lobby firms, and corporate boards.  They are the talking heads who kibitz on cable news and write columns second guessing everyone but themselves.  It is the old Washington game of unaccountable power – as long as you make the right friends and go to the right cocktail parties your actual track record is irrelevant.


For America to move forward in the Middle East it must demand that Republican candidates rid themselves of those who ignored intelligence, cherry-picked facts, were oblivious to a millennia of history & culture, bungled the war, bungled the occupation, were complicit in crony capitalist scams that steered nearly a trillion dollars through questionable sole source contracts, dismissed blatant corruption, embraced the wrong factions, and refused to make amends or apologize for what they did.


In early 2003, Bush advisors met with foreign policy experts who served Ronald Reagan.  The strategists who brought down the Soviet Empire unanimously opposed Bush’s plan to invade Iraq.  They listed dozens of reasons.  They correctly reminded the Bush team that Iraq had served as the counter-balance to Iranian aspirations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Taking out Saddam Hussein, especially without a clear alternative, would leave chaos and a vacuum.  This would open the door for Iran to challenge Sunni hegemony in the region and lead to a sectarian conflict that would devastate the region.  The Bush team scoffed.


Why was the Bush team so fixated on going back into Iraq no matter the facts or the consequences? The story lies deep within a sequence of largely unreported events that put America and the region on a path to our current predicament.


At 4:00 a.m. “Saudi time” on Sunday, February 24, 1991 the U.S. launched a brilliantly designed and executed ground war into Iraq as part of “Desert Storm”. This end run around Iraqi forces in Kuwait (Operation Deep Strike) stands along side Austerlitz and Chancellorsville as one of the great battle maneuvers in history.


Only a handful of military and intelligence officials admit to what happened next. Several of them have confirmed these details to me and they are verified on a few websites.


Desert Storm’s original plan was to completely encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard units defending Basra [ http://www.hoskinson.net/gulfwar/dstorm13.html ].


On Tuesday, February 26, at 7:00 p.m. “Saudi time” the final armored units required for this encirclement entered Iraq and sped toward Basra. At that same time U.S. air strikes were obliterating retreating Iraqi forces along Route 80 near the town Al Jahra. These strikes destroyed 1,400 vehicles and killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death ].


As Wednesday February 27 dawned, CNN and other news organizations ran extensive video of the Route 80 carnage, now christened the “Highway of Death”. Some reporters and commentators began to question whether the “Highway of Death” was a gratuitous killing spree. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was disturbed by the “shooting gallery” scenes and by the negative turn of news coverage. He shared his concern with President Bush and key White House advisors.


Debates raged in the White House about finishing the job of encircling the Republican Guard at Basra or “cutting losses” regarding negative media coverage. One staffer suggested that a compromise might be to end the ground war the next day (Thursday, February 28) at noon “Saudi time” as that would be exactly the 100-hour mark. This was immediately embraced as a “great number for the history books”. At 9:00 EST that evening a cease fire was announced to take effect nine hours later (4:00 a.m. EST or noon “Saudi time”).


Ground commanders, including Desert Storm commander General Norman Schwarzkopf, were shocked at the news. Lead armor units were less than 20 miles from completing their encirclement of the Republic Guards near Basra. The cease fire halted their advance leaving a strategic gap through which the Guard units resupplied and reformed under the U.S guns. A provisional ceasefire was formally signed three days later on March 3, 1991.


Unfortunately, this provisional ceasefire allowed the Iraqi military immediate use of their airspace and required U.S. forces to begin their withdrawal from Iraqi territory. [http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2006/11/ghosts-of-1991.html ]


Then matters got worse. On February 15, 1991, President George H. W. Bush issued statements calling on the Iraqi people to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. It was hoped that Iraqi generals and key Sunni leaders would use the war as their opportunity for an uprising.


On March 3, 1991, the same day as a provisional ceasefire was signed, uprisings did occur, but among the Kurds in the north of Iraq, and the Shiites in the south. Bush officials were concerned that the Kurdish uprising might ignite Turkish fears of a greater Kurdistan and the Shiite uprising might trigger Iranian intervention. U.S. officials decided the best policy was to stand by and watch as Iraq brutally suppressed both revolts, killing over 100,000 civilians. Iraqi armored units and supply convoys moved with impunity while Iraqi helicopters flew by U.S. forces on their way to strafe rebelling Shiites.


Bush officials were concerned that the Kurdish uprising might ignite Turkish fears of a greater Kurdistan and the Shiite uprising might trigger Iranian intervention. U.S. officials decided the best policy was to stand by and watch as Iraq brutally suppressed both revolts, killing over 100,000 civilians. Iraqi armored units and supply convoys moved with impunity while Iraqi helicopters flew by U.S. forces on their way to strafe rebelling Shiites.


Many myths arose from the 1991 war including the “big lie” that we considered taking Baghdad. This masks the disastrous decision to arbitrarily end the war and allow the Republican Guard units to be resupplied and reform under U.S. guns. It masks the inane provisional ceasefire that prematurely reopened Iraqi airspace for military operations. And it masks the miscues of the Bush administration encouraging revolt only to watch thousands of civilians get slaughtered


When George W. Bush, entered the White House, many in his inner circle, including Vice President Cheney, wanted a “do over”. Their priority was to find an excuse, any excuse, to finish off Saddam. The attacks on 9-11 gave them the pretext for a return to Iraq.


Americans need to remember these events as Republican candidates grapple with questions about the second Iraq War.


We must remember history and vow to learn from

America's Middle East Mistakes

Published on the History News Network.
http://hnn.us/article/153215

As Obama and Congress wrestle over intervening in Syria it is useful to reflect on the violence and uncertainty the United State has sown in the Middle East.

During the past eleven years, White House and State Department strategists, from both Parties, have ignored world history and plunged a key region into chaos. They also ignored Reagan’s Cold War “playbook”, which brought down the Soviet Empire and freed Eastern Europe.

Back in December 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the “Middle East Partnership Initiative” (MEPI). This was intended to create a long term “prospect of political reform” in the region. This push for democracy in Egypt, and throughout the Middle East, was promoted by President George W. Bush in his November 2003 speech at the National Endowment for Democracy. At the same time, Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs to manage MEPI.

The mounting death toll and uncertainty throughout the Middle East is proving that MEPI was ill conceived and poorly executed.

Firstly, those developing and implementing MEPI forgot or misunderstood how modern democracy evolved. Except for the unique experiment in 4th Century BC Athens, democracy took a thousand years, and countless lives, to take root and flower.

Starting with the first humans, there were already aspects of “government by the consent of the governed”. Hunter gatherers anointed leaders of their family groups or small tribes by selecting the eldest family member or the best hunter. As larger settlements evolved, these early leaders became warlords who enforced their power through force or mysticism.

It became a long road from a warlord choosing a council of advisors, to the people selecting those advisors, to the warlord (now King) being selected by the people or those advisors. The drivers for this evolution to democracy and universal suffrage were economic liberty and localism. The problem in the Middle East is that neither element is present.

The path to European democracy began because Humans are naturally entrepreneurial. It did not take long after the Vikings and other raiders settled down that towns and trade arose throughout Northern Europe. The moment merchants could exchange goods in safety, economic activity burst from out of castle walls and pulled away from the control of the nobility. Anywhere land and water met, or roads crossed, commerce occurred and towns grew.

By the 12th Century, towns, like Lübeck in Germany, were growing large enough to have their own governance. They still paid homage and taxes to nobles, but day-to-day commercial activity was now locally controlled by town councils and by skilled associations of artisans. The guild (or hansa) was the professional certifying association of its day. Among the towns along the Baltic Sea, trade was formalized as the “Hanseatic League” in 1356.

Local governance, except during the religious wars of the 16th and 17th Centuries, was focused on the basics of human existence. This includes water, sewer, garbage, roads, and safety. By focusing on the engineering aspects of daily life, people learned how to work together, sorted out differences, and developed the vital attributes of civilization – tolerance of differences balanced with rules of engagement.

Localism, therefore, becomes a proving and training ground for self governance and basic democracy. The U.S. State Department’s “nation building” ignores this maxim in favor of consolidating power nationally. America diplomats may want to project U.S. influence from the safety of a central Embassy complex instead of braving the risks of unpaved roads and rural hamlets.

It may also have something to do with “one size fits all” dogmatism. Afghanistan has always been run by local tribes and warlords, and occasionally with a titular King to referee disputes and rally the region against a common threat. Yet, the U.S. imposed a centralized government that is not working. Iraq was three distinct provinces under the Ottoman Empire for four hundred years. Instead of forming a federated state, the U.S. imposed a highly centralized government that is not working. America is a federal system with large swaths of local autonomy for state, counties, and municipalities – so why didn’t we consider this model for others?

Localism would work wonders in the Middle East. This is not tribalism, but a focus on a community that transcends family and sectarian loyalties. There is no Sunni or Shiite way to pave a road, collect trash, or provide clean water. They could draw inspiration from Muhammad’s Constitution of Medina [622 AD], which established the concept of “Ummah” - cooperation among all people (of every religion and ethnic group) within a local community. Locals would have to work together and develop their own democratic culture, just like Europe did. It takes time - maybe centuries, certainly decades. It will not always be trouble or violence free. The ultimate bottom line at the local level is not about which religious or ethnic group triumphs, but whether tangible quality of life can occur. Such mundane measures can quell many conflicts.

Economic freedom is the other driver for democracy. Once people can make a living with little or no meddling from the noble, they begin to realize that the noble needs them more than they need the noble. The noble wants to maintain his castle and his knights both for protect and ego. For this he needs to charge fees or taxes. Once independent towns grew outside of castle walls, or far away from manor lands, people had the freedom and mobility to “vote with their feet”. Is a noble is cruel, corrupt, or charges extortionary taxes? Then move to the next village.

Economic vitality and localism in England drove a centuries’ long migration from King over the people to people over the King. In 1215, local English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta declaring he could not levy taxes without their consent. This pivotal document also outlined rules of law that shape Western democracy and justice to this day.

The Magna Carta also initiated a tug-of-war between King and subjects. Various implementing documents rapidly expanded the voice and power of land owners, such as Provisions of Oxford [1258]; Statute of Marlborough [1267]; and the Provisions of Westminster [1259]. The economic vitality of the towns forced the recognition of commoners as representatives of the people separate from the nobility. By 1341, the Commons began to meet separately from the nobility and clergy (now the House of Lords) in Parliament.

Parliament, now with two chambers, expanded its role from validating royal edicts to initiating its own edicts, and ultimately to reviewing and even rejecting the King’s actions. By 1485, the King was no longer a Member of Parliament. By this time a member of either chamber could present a "bill" to Parliament. Bills supported by the monarch were introduced by Members of the Privy Council, who sat in Parliament. In order for a bill to become law it had to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Parliament before it went to the King for their approval or veto. The basic outlines of western Democracy were forming.
In the 17th Century, Charles I tried to reverse these arrangements, fought and lost a civil war, and then lost his head. The British Parliament sanctioned dictatorship, then returned to the old ways, before finally establishing the power to remove or anoint kings during the “Glorious Revolution” in November, 1688. In 1701, the “Act of Settlement” codified the preeminence of parliament and began the English constitutional monarchy.
The lesson of this English Civil War is lost on the U.S. in the Middle East – when dictators fall, the most fanatical and well-organized faction takes power, even under “democratic” circumstances. Upheavals favor the fanatics. Cromwell, Robespierre, Lenin, and Hitler are just some on the long list of dictators who exploited power vacuums.

In England, once a separate parliamentary body presented itself as representing “the people” a new evolution of who are “the people” took place. In 1430, “the people’s” “franchise” was limited to Forty Shilling Male Freeholders. As commerce and the Industrial Revolution shifted the rural population into ever larger and crowded towns and cities “the people” demanded representation that reflected the true nature of the community. It took decades, but in 1832 the “Great” Reform Act enfranchised millions of Male citizens.

Thus began the Suffrage movement to expand the franchise to women. In 1893, New Zealand became the first self-governing nation to extend the right to vote to all adult women. In 1906, Finland became the first European nation to give women the right to vote. During and after World War I, women finally achieved their full voting rights in Britain (1918), the Netherlands (1919), and the United States (August 26, 1920). Voting rights for African Americans were not granted until the 15th Amendment (ratified on February 3, 1870), and not fully enforced until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This description of the development of democracy in England and the west is totally lost on U.S. policy makers and implementers. It took 704 years from the signing of the Magna Carta to women suffrage for England to be a true Democracy. America benefited from its British legacy, but it still took 133 years for women to vote, and 83/178 years for African Americans to vote.

So, is it any wonder that Egypt did not “get it right the first time”? Is it any wonder that the “Arab Spring” has become a “winter of discontent”? It is any wonder that the King of Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf State royals, is not enthusiastic about making the great Democratic leap? The America model, as pushed by the NeoCons and the last two Administrations, is out of time and place with the region. Economic freedom must come, which means companies need to arise without a royal family member on their board. Independent businessmen must achieve economic liberty, and become community leaders, before ballot boxes are distributed.

Ironically, this was the original U.S. plan for Egypt. In 2000, the University of Maryland and other academic institutions partnered with USAID and the State Department to develop the top 50 businesses in Egypt. The goal was for these companies, some former parastatals, to become profitable and regionally competitive. Other programs were designed to prepare these business leaders to become community leaders. By 2004, the potential for a post-Mubarak Egypt being based upon a European style business-driven Democratic society was in reach.

In April 2004, the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) was launched as part of President Bush’s "forward strategy of freedom". The plan was to expand political rights and political participation in the Muslim world in order to combat the appeal of Islamist extremism. Bush and his advisors forgot that economic opportunity historically comes before political. Enter Liz Cheney and MEPI. Being a former teacher, Cheney felt education reform was the better path to democracy than nurturing a Capitalist elite. USAID, the Egyptian business community, and the U.S. Embassy, pushed back. Her father, the Vice President, sided with her vision of the future. Instead of embracing history and allowing economic freedom to ferment political reform, Egypt ended up with educated unemployed youths who looked to the fanatical fringe for salvation.

The tragedy of Egypt is not just the ignoring of how and why modern democracies rise; it is also about forgetting how Reagan controlled the democracy curve in Eastern Europe. During the 1980s, the Reagan Administration took numerous “active measures”, overt and covert, to topple the Soviet Empire. Reagan and his inner circle realized that removing tyrants was only half the challenge. They knew they had to be proactive in developing those who would replace the Eastern European dictators. Starting in 1981, legions of Reaganite grassroots and youth activists joined with English Thatcherites to tutor Eastern European dissidents on electoral politics. When the Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989 its ripple effects were anticipated and exploited by thousands of well prepared political leaders and campaign workers, who assured Democratic moderate factions prevailed in the elections that occurred. The European Union, the Library of Congress, and the U.S. Congress all became proactive in schooling these newly elected leaders in parliamentary processes, accountability, and constituent services. This comprehensive, strategic, and highly proactive approach to democratic transformation was completely missing during the Arab Spring.

Without economic freedom and localism, there was no economic or grassroots elites to fill the voids as the Middle East dictators fell. No campaign workshops were held for moderate factions any where in the region. The only organized groups were the fanatics in each country. Democracy may have provided the means, but because of America’s mistakes, it did not become the ends.

[Scot Faulkner has worked and traveled in the Middle East since 1981. He was a project leader for the business leadership initiative in Egypt. He also oversaw Eastern European parliamentary development programs while Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/ ]

They Live

The image in Vice President Cheney’s glasses ignited some wonderful speculation across the “blogosphere”. One of the more inspired takes was linking the image to John Carpenter’s 1988 film “They Live”: http://gawker.com/378357/cheneys-glasses-reflect-terrifying-truth

In that film, an out of work construction worker finds a pair of glasses that unmasks the space aliens among us. As the campaign season continues a number of things are happening that are unmasking the truth about candidates and the media.

Obama’s remarks about rural people embracing guns and religion out of bitterness has shown him holding the same contempt for real America as most liberal politicians. For him to demean people exercising their rights under the first and second amendments of the U.S. Constitution is truly unnerving. He and his surrogates are focusing on the “bitter” portion of the remark, but they have already been unmasked.

Obama’s lofty statements about embracing diversity are just campaign rhetoric. He is willing to pander to Americans in the “flyover” sections of our country to get their votes. Once in office, he will revert to form and listen to the usual liberal elite and the Washington power brokers. So much for change...

A CNN reporter apologized for fixating on Obama’s “bitter” remark and the misstatements of the Clintons, exclaiming, “we just have nothing new to talk about until April 22”.

Excuse me. Admitting that the news media has to wait until the next primary election to find something “important” to report is appalling. We have three people running for President. The media should be aggressively probing every aspect of their policies, their inner circle, and their record. This long hiatus between primaries offers an ideal opportunity for the media to provide real insight into who will be our next leader. Instead, the talking heads are adrift. It is time for these news outlets to fire their multimillion “talent” and find some real news reporters.

The final unmasking occurred at a local Republican Lincoln Day Dinner. Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, but local GOP party organizations across the nation hold their tributes when speakers or good weather are available.

This Lincoln dinner was held in a fire hall and had all the trappings of grassroots politics. Then the program began. A long line of candidates from Governor to local tax assessor came to the microphone to plead their case for contributions and votes. Even accounting for the neophytes, it was a deeply disturbing showcase of what is wrong with today’s politics.

Several candidates actually thought it was Lincoln’s birthday, showing their basic ignorance of our history. Others spoke about national issues, although they were running for a local office, showing their basic misunderstanding of the job to which they aspired. Many cited their only credentials as having lived all their lives in the area or having a loving spouse. One undercut this credential when he had to look down at his written remarks to read, “I could not be here without recognizing my loving wife”. He also had to peer down at his written speech when he later stated, “I am a lifelong Republican”. My skin crawled.

Then various incumbent legislators stood at the podium. They ignored the 150+ audience in order to banter with their colleagues sitting nearby. They must have thought they were the new “rat pack” and that the audience just came to watch their interplay. The inherent insincerity among legislators made the spectacle even more obtuse. Maybe I have been involved in politics too long. When I was younger such events left me energized, this one left me depressed. Or maybe politicians are just getting sloppier with their deceptions.

The Real Reason we are in Iraq

Why did the U.S. invade Iraq if September 11, 2001 was led by Saudi Bin Laden, planes were hijacked by Saudis, and Saudi Wahhabism inspired the terrorism?

March 19 marks the five-year anniversary of America being in Iraq. It has also been just over seventeen years since a sequence of largely unreported events put us on a path to our current predicament.

At 4:00 a.m. “Saudi time” on Sunday, February 24, 1991 the U.S. launched a brilliantly designed and executed ground war into Iraq as part of “Desert Storm”. This end run around Iraqi forces in Kuwait (Operation Deep Strike) stands along side Austerlitz and Chancellorsville as one of the great battle maneuvers in history.

Only a handful of military and intelligence officials admit to what happened next. Several of them have confirmed these details to me and they are verified on a few websites.

Desert Storm’s original plan was to completely encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard units defending Basra [ http://www.hoskinson.net/gulfwar/dstorm13.html ]. On Tuesday, February 26, at 7:00 p.m. “Saudi time” the final armored units required for this encirclement entered Iraq and sped toward Basra. At that same time U.S. air strikes were obliterating retreating Iraqi forces along Route 80 near the town Al Jahra. These strikes destroyed 1,400 vehicles and killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death ].

As Wednesday, February 27, dawned CNN and other news organizations ran extensive video of the Route 80 carnage quickly renamed the “Highway of Death”. Some reporters and commentators began to question whether the “Highway of Death” was a gratuitous killing spree. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was disturbed by the “shooting gallery” scenes and by the negative turn of news coverage. He shared his concern with President Bush and key White House advisors.

Debates raged in the White House about finishing the job of encircling the Republican Guard at Basra and “cutting losses” regarding negative media coverage. One staffer suggested that a compromise might be to end the ground war the next day (Thursday, February 28) at noon “Saudi time” as that would be exactly the 100-hour mark. This was immediately embraced as a “great number for the history books”. At 9:00 EST that evening a cease fire was announced to take effect nine hours later (4:00 a.m. EST or noon “Saudi time”).

Ground commanders, including Desert Storm commander General Norman Schwarzkopf , were shocked at the news. Lead armor units were less than 20 miles from completing their encirclement of the Republic Guards near Basra. The cease fire halted their advance leaving a strategic gap through which the Guard units resupplied and reformed under the U.S guns. A provisional ceasefire was formally signed three days later on March 3, 1991.

Unfortunately, this provisional ceasefire allowed the Iraqi military immediate use of their airspace and required U.S. forces to begin their withdrawal from Iraqi territory. [ http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2006/11/ghosts-of-1991.html ]

Then matters got worse. On February 15, 1991, President George H. W. Bush issued statements calling on the Iraqi people to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. It was hoped that Iraqi generals and key Sunni leaders would use the war as their opportunity for an uprising. On March 3, 1991, the same day as a provisional ceasefire was signed, uprisings did occur, but among the Kurds in the north of Iraq, and the Shiites in the south.

Bush officials were concerned that the Kurdish uprising might ignite Turkish fears of a greater Kurdistan and the Shiite uprising might trigger Iranian intervention. U.S. officials decided the best policy was to stand by and watch as Iraq brutally suppressed both revolts, killing over 100,000 civilians. Iraqi armored units and supply convoys moved with impunity while Iraqi helicopters flew by U.S. forces on their way to strafe rebelling Shiites.

We need to remember these events as we mark the fifth anniversary of the current Iraq war. Many myths arose from the 1991 war including the “big lie” that we considered taking Baghdad. This masks the disastrous decision to arbitrarily end the war and allow the Republican Guard units to be resupplied and reform under U.S. guns. It masks the insane provisional ceasefire that prematurely reopened Iraqi airspace for military operations. And it masks the miscues of the Bush administration encouraging revolt only to watch thousands of civilians get slaughtered.

When we ponder why the current administration is so obsessed with Iraq, realize that it may have something to do with Bush 43 and Vice President Cheney (who was Secretary of Defense during Desert Storm) wanting to correct the mistakes of Bush 41. We are all paying the price for the mistakes of 1991 and may for many more years to come. 

The 9-11 attacks, along with the earlier support against the Soviets in Afghanistan, was part of Bin Laden’s goal to lure infidel governments into “long wars of attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender”. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the infidels, by "bleeding" them dry.  Bin Laden outlined his strategy of "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" in a 2004 tape released through Al Jazeera.

Unfortunately, Bin Laden’s strategy worked.  His attacks on September 11, 2001 pulled America into two endless wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) that have cost $6.4 trillion dollars, 14,681 killed, and 52,272 wounded.